San Franciscan Peter Thief knows the power of location. Once famously said, why am I paying my people so much if it all goes to their landlords? One of us actually had a brief communication with him back then. People paying for what labor and capital did not create eventually absorbs all purchasing power leaving people with nothing to pay for what labor and capital do create. That's the cause and inception of the regularly occurring recession. Something economists can not forecast while we geonomists can and do. Economics is so corrupt--besides stealing the "Nobel" name and not identifying funders of research papers--once the president of the U of Michigan, in an interview, defended himself by saying, he did not _always_ do what he's told by their biggest donor, the biggest developer in the state. While ground rent is a quarter of national income, patent rent is as much or more. The Thiels and Musks et al get thousands of patents every year, not to use a novelty, but to plant a "no trespassing" sign on a portion of the field of knowledge. Encouragingly, in America the burgeoning anti-monopoly movement is open to our ideas re rent recovery. A very steep uphill battle. The first state was the aristocracy. Nothing's changed. A pair of profs at the U of Minnesota showed that no bill passes without big bucks behind it, usually rent bucks, but occasionally humanitarian sources, maybe 5% of the bills. Their conclusion was therefore voting was pointless. Somewhat more practical is contributing to an incumbent. The incumbency rate in the US is higher than in the old USSR--99% VS 95%. Thanx, Peter, for mentioning the backfire effect is speaking "taxese".
Very insightful, thank you. There is a clear distinction between a brand and a monopoly which we seem to have lost sight of. Why build a brand if a moat is cheaper and more effective?
I recall the auction of wavelength available for mobile phones as a failed experiment in pricing a moat. The sale of government monopolies was a contributing factor in fuelling the French Revolution. Plus ca change.......
Even if a brand has elements of monopoly, its recognition as a sign of quality and effort should be untaxed, but is monoplisation of advertising space, shelf space, etc should be taxed. I feel advertising should be taxed in some way as it is monoplosation of attention, excluding real competition, and creates a freer market. Plus c'est la même chose...
I don't think you are correct in looking for a specific levy on advertising. Not just because there are better fish to fry, but as a matter of principle. Advertising is not cheap, it is generally only effective if the product does "what it says on the tin" and customers, by and large, are not fools easily taken in by spurious claims more than once and suppliers, proud of their products or services, should be able to tell buyers about them.
An advertising tax may not be the right vehicle, but human attention is a monopoly and efforts to monopolise that attention have externalities and can me considrered a monopoly - I have no idea how that is best tackled, but the issue is becoming increasingly obvious.
Well, I don't agree but even if I did it would figure way down in the hierarchy of things that need to change.
While I am a long term advocate for LVT I do wonder about the level of tax LV can support. Looking at property on a disaggregated basis as separate assets the land bears most resemblance to an index linked gilt, though from a more trustworthy issuer. A long term yield would be expected to be 1, or 2% at most, and even taxed at 100% would be relatively small in total. My, back of envelope, thought is that it might just pay for essential government at say 1910 level.
A rational look at a house reveals an item of plant with a finite life. Many houses in the UK have lasted well beyond their design life and were designed and built to be heated with coal fires meaning they are now cold, damp and expensive to run and maintain. (I live in one!) Others, more modern and "affordable" are small. All are very costly to buy as you would expect from the constrained supply, subsidised owner occupation and convoluted planning regulation. Assuming that at some point declining birth rates, more sensible tax policies and controlled immigration come to pass house prices will become more rational. At that point the value of land will fall, probably dramatically and the potential tax base with it because, at its simplest, the land value is the residual after deducting the rebuilding cost from the aggregated value of land and building.
On the subject of residential property tax I believe the single biggest mistake in tax policy in post war Britain was the repeal of the original income tax. Income tax was introduced as a tax on the rental value of property. It's first schedule, Schedule A was levied on the full rental value of residential property. Deductions were allowed for maintenance costs and interest paid on money borrowed for purchase. It was paid on all property. This tax was abolished in 1963 though the deduction of interest from general income was carried forward for many years afterwards. This single change made investment in residential property the greatest source of tax free "income" available to everyone and has distorted all investment decisions since. The mistake was subsequently reinforced by the irrational exclusion of homes from the capital gains tax when it was introduced later.
Interestingly, 150 years ago when it big cities were growing exponentially the big land owners mostly leased building plots and retained freehold ownership of the land, a disaggregation that would make sense now if combined with a LVT but it's assuredly politically impossible!
"Competition is a sin" JD Rockefeller
www.doughforge.org is adjacent to this Georgist message add #proudhon #kropotkin #Bakunin #ChesterBelloc #distributism to taste https://grubstreetinexile.substack.com/p/progress-and-poverty-revisited-a?r=l1oox&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
San Franciscan Peter Thief knows the power of location. Once famously said, why am I paying my people so much if it all goes to their landlords? One of us actually had a brief communication with him back then. People paying for what labor and capital did not create eventually absorbs all purchasing power leaving people with nothing to pay for what labor and capital do create. That's the cause and inception of the regularly occurring recession. Something economists can not forecast while we geonomists can and do. Economics is so corrupt--besides stealing the "Nobel" name and not identifying funders of research papers--once the president of the U of Michigan, in an interview, defended himself by saying, he did not _always_ do what he's told by their biggest donor, the biggest developer in the state. While ground rent is a quarter of national income, patent rent is as much or more. The Thiels and Musks et al get thousands of patents every year, not to use a novelty, but to plant a "no trespassing" sign on a portion of the field of knowledge. Encouragingly, in America the burgeoning anti-monopoly movement is open to our ideas re rent recovery. A very steep uphill battle. The first state was the aristocracy. Nothing's changed. A pair of profs at the U of Minnesota showed that no bill passes without big bucks behind it, usually rent bucks, but occasionally humanitarian sources, maybe 5% of the bills. Their conclusion was therefore voting was pointless. Somewhat more practical is contributing to an incumbent. The incumbency rate in the US is higher than in the old USSR--99% VS 95%. Thanx, Peter, for mentioning the backfire effect is speaking "taxese".
Very insightful, thank you. There is a clear distinction between a brand and a monopoly which we seem to have lost sight of. Why build a brand if a moat is cheaper and more effective?
I recall the auction of wavelength available for mobile phones as a failed experiment in pricing a moat. The sale of government monopolies was a contributing factor in fuelling the French Revolution. Plus ca change.......
Even if a brand has elements of monopoly, its recognition as a sign of quality and effort should be untaxed, but is monoplisation of advertising space, shelf space, etc should be taxed. I feel advertising should be taxed in some way as it is monoplosation of attention, excluding real competition, and creates a freer market. Plus c'est la même chose...
I don't think you are correct in looking for a specific levy on advertising. Not just because there are better fish to fry, but as a matter of principle. Advertising is not cheap, it is generally only effective if the product does "what it says on the tin" and customers, by and large, are not fools easily taken in by spurious claims more than once and suppliers, proud of their products or services, should be able to tell buyers about them.
An advertising tax may not be the right vehicle, but human attention is a monopoly and efforts to monopolise that attention have externalities and can me considrered a monopoly - I have no idea how that is best tackled, but the issue is becoming increasingly obvious.
Well, I don't agree but even if I did it would figure way down in the hierarchy of things that need to change.
While I am a long term advocate for LVT I do wonder about the level of tax LV can support. Looking at property on a disaggregated basis as separate assets the land bears most resemblance to an index linked gilt, though from a more trustworthy issuer. A long term yield would be expected to be 1, or 2% at most, and even taxed at 100% would be relatively small in total. My, back of envelope, thought is that it might just pay for essential government at say 1910 level.
A rational look at a house reveals an item of plant with a finite life. Many houses in the UK have lasted well beyond their design life and were designed and built to be heated with coal fires meaning they are now cold, damp and expensive to run and maintain. (I live in one!) Others, more modern and "affordable" are small. All are very costly to buy as you would expect from the constrained supply, subsidised owner occupation and convoluted planning regulation. Assuming that at some point declining birth rates, more sensible tax policies and controlled immigration come to pass house prices will become more rational. At that point the value of land will fall, probably dramatically and the potential tax base with it because, at its simplest, the land value is the residual after deducting the rebuilding cost from the aggregated value of land and building.
On the subject of residential property tax I believe the single biggest mistake in tax policy in post war Britain was the repeal of the original income tax. Income tax was introduced as a tax on the rental value of property. It's first schedule, Schedule A was levied on the full rental value of residential property. Deductions were allowed for maintenance costs and interest paid on money borrowed for purchase. It was paid on all property. This tax was abolished in 1963 though the deduction of interest from general income was carried forward for many years afterwards. This single change made investment in residential property the greatest source of tax free "income" available to everyone and has distorted all investment decisions since. The mistake was subsequently reinforced by the irrational exclusion of homes from the capital gains tax when it was introduced later.
Interestingly, 150 years ago when it big cities were growing exponentially the big land owners mostly leased building plots and retained freehold ownership of the land, a disaggregation that would make sense now if combined with a LVT but it's assuredly politically impossible!