From the FT:
Sir, In your impressive editorial on November 1 you state that the existing housing benefit system is “indefensible” and “should be changed on moral as well as economic grounds”. Unfortunately, is this statement not undermined by a remarkable inconsistency? What about the other property benefit system, where all those of us who give our labour, or risk our capital, create, sustain and increase the wealth of those of us who own land?
The cost of this latter benefit is measured in part by the way the land value element of private property interests increases over the years at a substantially greater rate than wages or prices, forcing those of us who pay tax on our efforts in having to pay even higher rent to the landlords. Is this not forcing the landless to pay twice for a value they have created?
We then appear to be in the extraordinary situation that taxes are increased even further, on labour and risk capital of course, to pay cash in the form of benefits to try to ameliorate the worst effects of this injustice. And the effect of this? Well, it tends to make the poor poorer and the wealthy even wealthier and greater economic prosperity forces the price of property to rise faster still due to the limited supply of land. This system is so attractive to the wealthy, and the asset bubble sustained by it so large, that the chances of any political party being even prepared to openly debate the subject seems highly unlikely.
And what is the message that is left for the poor? We will give you charity, not justice?
John Read, London NW11.
Monday, 8 November 2010
Reader's Letter Of The Day
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
56 comments:
Superb. The private and welfare state described well. The last line says more... philanthropy. See here for reinforcement:
Real Reform: Where Are My Wages Going Mr Osbourne?
"land value element of private property interests increases over the years at a substantially greater rate than wages or prices"
Is this because it has to do so, or because people try so hard to become "owners"?
To break the land bubble vicious circle we would need a complete change in culture. People are still used to the value of their savings evaporating via inflation and taxation, they are used to their pension funds collapsing and being defrauded. Is it any wonder that people like the idea of an investment they can touch and live in?
BE: "land value element of private property interests increases over the years at a substantially greater rate than wages or prices" Is this because it has to do so, or because people try so hard to become "owners"?
Yes, this is a natural phenomenom and would happen in the absence of any taxes or planning restrictions whatsoever, and is based on 'Ricardo's Law of Rent'.
Breaking the land price bubble is dead easy - stop taxing incomes and profits and tax land rental values instead.
The Home-Owner-Ist elite (banks, politicians, large landowners) exploit the simple desire to 'have an investment you can touch and live in' and use it to fuel the bubble even further (because people are prepared to overpay to become 'owners'). But if most of the revenues were dished out as a Citizen's Income, then that would always be enough to pay the tax on a property big enough for you to live in, that's your security.
Enviably eloquent.
I'd say that is reader's letter of the year.
Or, as my father in law puts it, the problem with this country is that there are too many people being paid for doing nothing.
The land bubble is largely fictitious. It only really matters in a parochial sense.
Measure the health of a country by the strength of its currency. Since QE the pound has slid from 2.5 Aus dollars to 1.2
The counterpoint to this letter would be that landowners are getting poorer (which, in view of the forgoing,I think they are) meaning that non-landowners should be getting richer... which they aren't !
(my deletions above - apols)
EK, there may be times when land owners or home owners are becoming, on paper, poorer. But in real terms they aren't (they still own the same land and buildings).
The point is that all workers and entrepreneurs (including the majority who are also home owners) are getting disproportionately poorer:
a) Because of the 'financial crisis' (caused by Home-Owner-Ism) and
b) Because the government is slapping a load of extra taxes on the productive economy (2.5% VAT plus 2% National Insurance) to bail out the banks and prop up house prices.
The answer is simple then.
Everyone stop working so hard and so successfuly.
Then the rents will come down.
Ek, that's one possibility, but Labour had an 'app' for that - bring in loads of immigrants.
Those who couldn't work were given the council houses to make sure we're all scrambling to 'get on the property ladder' or paying inflated rents to landlords; and those who could work kept the economy growing and undercut our wages at the same time.
The Lib-Con approach is more straightforward - just hike taxes on the productive economy; complete halt to all new construction and keep bailing out all the banks and keep interest rates as low as possible.
EK, maybe I've missed your point on this? The law of rent is as follows:
Production = Rent + Wages + Interest, so
Production - Rent = Wages + Interest
So the tendency, in an advancing economy, is to increase the proportion of all production to rent. This is known as the wealth divide. It is not a bad thing in itself. The problem with the wealth divide is caused by allowing the rent to be collected privately rather than collected for revenue and pre-distributed as say a CI as per MW.
It all sounds like a paradox until you look at the equation.
Even in a mutha of all recessions the landowner will always remain more wealthier in proportion to the capitalist and the worker. Even though absolute total wealth will have fallen and the wealth divide narrowed.
If it never recovers, when land finally becomes worth nothing again(free with no rent) everyone will be equally unfortunate and have to work equally hard to make a living. But that will be very hard indeed and all advantages of society will have been lost. The animal kingdom.
So reducing production to solve the problem just drifts us towards hunter gatherers.
The problem is not about the ability to produce wealth. It is all about how wealth is distributed as per the equation.
Right now it goes mostly to non producers as land value. That is all.
Broadly speaking the capitalist and land owner are meant to be more wealthy than the worker. In that respect things are as they should be.
And to be honest I don't know many capitalists who aren't land owners.
British people are going to have to get used to the idea of living as Indians and Chinese do. Multi-occupancy dwellings.
This isn't a matter of the 'unfairness' of land owning - it's simply the reality of globalisation and our economic decline.
EK, there is no clear dividing line between 'capitalist' and 'worker'. For example the self-employed and so on. They all live off their own efforts, some takes bigger risks and a small number of those get very big rewards (a lot of would be capitalists lose money and return to the ranks of 'workers' etc). And then there are very high paid workers (like football players etc).
But there is a clear dividing line between those who live off their own efforts or luck etc (capitalists or workers) and those who become or remain wealthy because the state creates, guarantees and protects their source of income - to wit mainly land owners (but also corporatists, civil servants, pensioners and welfare claimants, in descending order of how much they get from the government).
For sure, successful capitalists 'invest' their hard earned money in easier sources of income, like land or like buying up politicians, and so they become landowners or corporatists in the end, separate topic...
But why wouldn't they? It's an inescapable fact that the government quite deliberately taxes the productive economy at punitive rates and subsidises land ownership or home ownership (and the banking system, which at its present size and scale destroys rather than creates wealth).
Does anyone really spell his surname "Read"?
Capitalists start diversifying into property at a fairly junior level in my experience. And corporations are notorious for tax evasion in this country. Creative accounting is endemic and I believe it to be done with tacit approval. What tends to be holding enrepreneurs back is not that the system is skewed in favour of land owners but red tape, human rights and high labour costs.
The only problem I have with property is the illusion of wealth it gives to those who have title to it. Try realising it on the global market and see how little most of it gets you nowadays. Try spending your newly increased rental yield and see if it gets you anymore than you could before.
D, that's his surname.
EK, hoorah for people who evade income tax, corporation tax, VAT, that should serve to remind us how stupid these taxes are.
"What tends to be holding enrepreneurs back is not that the system is skewed in favour of land owners but red tape, human rights and high labour costs."
Yes of course, it all adds up, but can you quantify the relative impact of all these? How much do all these things cost businesses? And are labour costs not high partly because of taxation?
"The only problem I have with property is the illusion of wealth it gives to those who have title to it."
But it's not entirely illusory. In any event, there is no fundamental reason why merely 'owning' land generates you any income or profits at all, seeing as you can only 'own' land as long as the government is there to protect you etc.
"EK, hoorah for people who evade income tax, corporation tax, VAT, that should serve to remind us how stupid these taxes are."
Hey and some people make a very good living out of finding & advising on the best ways to go about it. The mere fact that its so laughably simple to do is a condemnation of government policy (see what I did there)
EK. Do you own any land?
You may be confusing capitalism with monopolism?
And also confusing the production of wealth with its natural distribution. This is a classic case of the false battle between labour and capital:
Real Reform: The Real Battle
And then claiming this apparent injustice is a natural law, which is quite a cop out.
You make a lot of bold claims. But supply no logic or evidence. What gives? Who did you vote for? How much land have you got or do you aspire to it?
MW quite right, taxation is protectionism for monopoly power, plain and simple. The more I look at VAT the more we should target that as the weak spot. Forget about LVT for now, that will come automatically once the weaker protectionists have been buried.
Real Reform: VAT is protectionism - Lets target it for cuts
Scott Wright:
Quite true. But how much wealth have accountants added to the common stock? All they have enable is a transfer of wealth. From the ones making more of it, to the ones making less.
Its a useless profession, that reduces production and land values, just like lawyers. (sorry MW)
Why not use your skill and industry for useful productive economic purposes? To increase the rent. Would that satisfy you more?
I would guess that there is quite a high positive correlation between high production and land values and the number of accountants - perhaps it's time for a graphic? - so, useless as accountants may be, I think Robin Smith is likely to be wrong on that one.
RS: "Scott Wright:
Quite true. But how much wealth have accountants added to the common stock? All they have enable is a transfer of wealth. From the ones making more of it, to the ones making less.
Its a useless profession, that reduces production and land values, just like lawyers. (sorry MW)
Why not use your skill and industry for useful productive economic purposes? To increase the rent. Would that satisfy you more?"
Honestly it may sound weird coming from an LVT advocate but if I had my time over, i'd have liked to have gone into architecture & construction. I want to see nice houses not the shite which blights our landscape, the Wimpy estates & such like that pop up these days are awful, houses called 3 bedroom where one of the bedrooms is not of a size fit for a dog.
I cheerfully admit that what tax advisors* do is probably of little net benefit to the economy** (while of significant benefit to our indidivual clients), but that is not our fault, it's the government's fault for trying to impose these stupid taxes on us.
* Tax advisors are just one of three kinds of 'accountant' of course. Auditors are largely value destroying. Good old-fashioned bookkeeping will always be required and clearly does add value.
** There is a small benefit, because by exploiting stupid loopholes that the government was too stupid to spot, we indirectly help the government write slightly less insane tax laws. Whether the benefit outweighs the costs to our individual clients is a separate debate.
Limited supply of released land, that is.
JH, while reducing the power of NIMBYs to thwart supply is A Good Thing, the amount of new land built on has little impact on prices paid.
Superficially, a larger supply -> lower prices, BUT more and better buildings -> bigger economy -> higher prices.
In any event, increasing the amount of developed land would still increase the total return to land ownership - compare and contrast total return to owners of land in towns as against total return to owners of farmland.
To H, I do keep alluding to this graph. Will it suffice. The power will go with the flow and that means huge numbers of accts going rent seeking? Not winging, yet it is what it is.
Real Reform: Where Are My Wages Going Mr Osbourne?
I think accountants are jolly good chaps on the whole. Just they could add more to the common stock elsewhere... on the whole. Just like lawyers. But like water flows down hill... etc etc
SW: exactly! you are now free to do what you want. Voluntarily employed or voluntarily unemployed. No longer a wage slave.
MW perhaps more an arms race?
Robin Smith (and others):
I'll have one last punt at explaining my logic (quoting the letter - point-by-point - from memory as I seem unable to view it whilst typing):
"All those who labour, take risk ... blah de blah" [contributing to the value of land]
Many of those have a vested interest in land/property too. We are a property owning democracy.
"The land value element increases at a higher rate than wages - higher rents go to landlords"
Well, that depends on what line of country you're in and where you live. Landlords can only raise rents to a level that the market can afford.
"Taxes are increased further to pay benefits."
On this one point I agree. The BTL market is propped up artificially by the State. But remember that the author is actually challenging the original article on this very point.
"The poorer get poorer and the wealthier get wealthier."
I disagree. The poorer have never be fatter and never have their homes been so well appointed as they are today - exceeding the expectations of the middle classes of yesterday and - in some well publicised cases - exceeding the middle classes of today.
"Greater economic prosperity forcing the price of land to rise."
Hold on a minute. I thought the author was telling us we were getting poorer.
Robin. Yes I do own land. And yes. I do aspire to own more of it.
I understand that it can go both up and down in value and that there is risk and effort involved in both acquiring it and holding on to it (which the author omitted to mention.)
I also understand that I am not exluded by reason of birth, creed or class from seeking title to land/property. This is distinct from the serf-like and self pitying attitude which the author seems to display.
... and not once does he mention the effects of mass immigration.
EK: "Many of those have a vested interest in land/property too. We are a property owning democracy."
I have never said anything else. But just a few thoughts in no particular order:
1. We all have the 'right' to buy property in the same way as Eric Idle in "Life of Brian" had the 'right' to have babies.
2. Which is why the vested interests do their best to restrict supply (NIMBYism) while simultaneously calling out for subsidies to home ownership (Council Tax freeze, low interest rates, mortgage support for welfare claimants, free old age care etc).
3. Further, while earned income is fairly evenly distributed, land ownership is incredibly skewed (simple and verifiable fact) and appears to become more skewed over time (owner-occupation down from 72% to 69% over last ten years).
3. That wasn't the point, the point is that, mathematically, land values (and hence rents) increase disproportionately to overall incomes (there is a good rational explanation for this and it can be easily observed in practice).
4. So if incomes increase 2% and rental values increase 3%. Sure, if incomes were £100 and go to £102, and land rents were £40 and go to £41.20, our worker who is a tenant is better off by net £0.80, but his landlord is better off by £1.20. (so to say that workers become poorer in absolute terms over time is quite simply not true, of course).
5. But who is generating all that extra income to boost the landlord's income by £1.20? It ain't the landlord is it?
6. Remember also that the worker pays marginal 50% tax on his income but the landlord pays marginal 20% (rounded figures).
7. And the state takes the income tax and spends it on things like schools, and then if you want to buy a house near a good state school, you pay another £100,000 on top just for the privilege of sending your own children to a school which you already paid for out of your own taxes!
8. Finally, sure, many workers are also homeowners, so they gain on both sides of the equation - but that just means that their children and grandchildren will be worse off (paying larger share of income as mortgage or rent, and paying mortgage for 30 years rather then 20 and so on).
Ek, no he didn't mention immigration, but I did (see further up the thread). I take the widest possible view on everything.
I disagree. The poorer have never be fatter and never have their homes been so well appointed as they are today - exceeding the expectations of the middle classes of yesterday and - in some well publicised cases - exceeding the middle classes of today.
I have a feeling that the poor of today are considerably fewer than the poor of yesteryear. Before WWII, the majority of the working class were "the poor" and bore a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. Now, it appears, the majority of the working class is no longer poor nor are many of the non-working class, the unemployed. They may not have much ready cash, but their lifestyle is still way above that of their grandparents. So "the poor", about whom so many affluent politicos and quangoistas wring their hands day in, day out are now a small minority. That's no reason to kick them in the teeth, though, but accepting that enables a realisation that we are nearly all richer than we were, it's just that the distribution of wealth is as skewed as it's ever been, which brings us back, as ever, to the Politics of Envy.
B: "it's just that the distribution of wealth is as skewed as it's ever been, which brings us back, as ever, to the Politics of Envy."
I have never dabbled in 'the politics of envy' and am perfectly happy if the distributions of incomes becomes ever more skewed (as you say, on the whole we all become slightly richer over time). If somebody is prepared to pay Rooney's a million pounds a week for kicking a football, then good luck to Rooney.
What I object most strongly to is the long list of people who make an easy living off the backs of others:
- land owners, Home-Owner-ists, NIMBYs
- bankers
- quangista and politicians
- corporatists
- the EU
- and to some extent welfare claimants (who are the result of, rather than the cause of, The Welfare State).
I tend to rail against Home-Owner-Ists most because there are plenty of other 'blogs who rail against the other groups, so I don't want to duplicate their efforts.
PS, please don't confuse "incomes" with "wealth". Incomes are surprisingly evenly distributed, and shares in quoted plc's are widely held via pension funds, it's land 'ownership' that is extremely skewed.
PPS, for handy charts comparing relative distributions of income and land ownership, see here.
it's land 'ownership' that is extremely skewed.
But that only matters because land has a disproportionately high value, and that's only because of VAT and the taxes on labour. I'm sure that car ownership, vintage wine ownership or old master ownership is equally skewed. Personally, I have no issue about Lord Rothschild earning £7M a year for doing nothing (actually, he works bloody hard, I believe, but he needn't), like you I resent the wealthy who leech off the state, the quangoistas, the apparatchiks and the subsidised private sector. Nor do I mind bankers getting massive bonuses, but I do mind those bonuses being paid for out of public funds and the light taxation of financial business.
We have this arse about face.
Such polarisation of the land owning 'rich' and the assetless 'poor' is a manifestation of one thing only:
the abandonment of 3.5 x income as a basis for mortgage lending
It is certainly not through some secret political agenda to entrench the rich. If anything British politics (in the guise of centrism) has shifted leftwards and we have become more and more socialist as though by default.
The important thing is to understand why loose lending in the form of bank deregulation was so useful to government (in particular Nu Labour)
During the decline of wealth creating industry (which began long before property owneship became an obsession) and in the face of rising inflation (often disguised through reclassifications) political parties had to offer manifestos which promised to maintain rising standards of living.
How else to do this but through encouraging debt ? More importantly how else to do it through PERSONAL debt ? And how else to achieve that but to change conservative attitudes towards it ?
They backed the uptake of personal debt by encouraging housing booms.
This really is the last throw of the dice when it comes to us keeping our heads above water.
But Mr Read has it wrong. The ramping of asset values, sometimes through benefits, has far less to do with keeping the rich rich than it does keeping us all solvent.
B: ".. land 'ownership'... is extremely skewed." But that only matters because land has a disproportionately high value, and that's only because of VAT and the taxes on labour. I'm sure that car ownership, vintage wine ownership or old master ownership is equally skewed.
Historically, land 'ownership' was 100% concentrated in the hands of a few thousand Norman invaders, and they have been selling it back to us in dribs and drabs ever since.
Even ignoring this historical fact, the taxes on the productive economy (and subsidies to land 'ownership') accelerate the transfer of wealth from productive economy to land ownership. Hence my enthusiasm for scrapping taxes on the productive economy and collecting tax from land 'ownership' which might halt or reverse this trend.
Car ownership is not skewed in the slightest. You can pick up a perfectly decent second hand car for £5,000 or so, and the production of cars is not in any way 'redistributive' is it? I mean, does it redistribute wealth upwards or downwards when you buy a new car? Neither, is the answer.
In fact, you could argue that if Rich Chap buys himself a Ferrari or Rolls Royce, wealth is actually being redistributed downwards (quite voluntarily) because Rich Chap who can afford such a car is probably richer than the average worker in the Ferrari or RR factory.
And who cares about vintage wine or old masters? If that's your thing, then buy it. The value of such things is in no way down to the intervention of the government or the tax system.
"... like you I resent the wealthy who leech off the state."
Land ownership is synonymous with 'the state'. You cannot have one without the other. Every penny a welfare scrounger or quangista gets comes out of your taxes via 'the state'.
Similarly, every penny a landowner gets (in rent or selling price) comes out of your taxes via the state - only nobody notices because the cash changes hands directly from tenant to landlord, or from buyer to seller. But without the force of the state, this money would not be changing hands. Land 'ownership' is privatised tax collection.
EK: "Such polarisation of the land owning 'rich' and the assetless 'poor' is a manifestation of one thing only: the abandonment of 3.5 x income as a basis for mortgage lending"
Well clearly these 6x income 125% mortgages were lunacy - but who's now paying the price? The current government is doing its best to prop up the duly inflated house prices, bailing out bankers, subsidising home owners, hiking taxes on the productive economy etc etc.
"If anything British politics (in the guise of centrism) has shifted leftwards and we have become more and more socialist as though by default."
Yup. We are straddling the line between Corporatism, large state authoritarianism and Blue Socialism (which is like Socialism, only it's not run for the benefit of the Politburo in their Datschas, it's run for the benefit of bankers and MPs in their second, third and fourth homes) and the EU which is a mixture of 'all of the above'.
"The ramping of asset values, sometimes through benefits, has far less to do with keeping the rich rich than it does keeping us all solvent."
Well, seeing as we becoming increasingly hopelessly insolvent, I'd dispute that. Ask yourself, who has gained most during the Home-Owner-Ist/bubble period since the 1970s?
It's the leeches I referred to in my list above.
Many of those have a vested interest in land/property too. We are a property owning democracy.
Actually, not so much. Until they've cleared the mortgage, they are not property owning; the most they can be is a land/property speculator. Also, most arguments that start along these lines ignore the differential value of land, and you are making the same mistake.
Landlords can only raise rents to a level that the market can afford.
Yes, but it does this by lowering wages and interest. As land becomes more valuable, people are required to give up more to obtain it. Clearly those who own the benefit of land (which isn't the same as being the 'owner' of the land), are the benficiaries of this process. If land is also prevented from being brought into use, then this process ends in wages falling below subsistence. Hence the socialist call for a 'living wage', not understanding how people got into this mess in the first place.
I disagree. The poorer have never be fatter and never have their homes been so well appointed as they are today - exceeding the expectations of the middle classes of yesterday and - in some well publicised cases - exceeding the middle classes of today.
You're viewing a society distorted by the welfare system. One of the effects of it is a partial redistribution from the landed to the landless, but this is entirely by accident, and in a manner that destroys industry. Take away the welfare state and the poor would simply starve, because without land reform the work would not materialise.
"I understand that it can go both up and down in value and that there is risk and effort involved in both acquiring it and holding on to it (which the author omitted to mention.)"
Effort in acquiring it, yes (and consider what that effort when it comes down to it really is), but in holding it? I don't think so.
"I also understand that I am not exluded by reason of birth, creed or class from seeking title to land/property. This is distinct from the serf-like and self pitying attitude which the author seems to display."
If you haven't paid off a mortgage then you are a serf. It really is that simple. *Everyone* is excluded by birth except those who inherit. Everyone else has to acquire the privilege to stand from the privileged on their terms. That you think you were born free is a sign of just how completely you have been deceived.
"Hold on a minute. I thought the author was telling us we were getting poorer."
No, he was telling us that the gap was getting bigger. Do pay attention.
"Such polarisation of the land owning 'rich' and the assetless 'poor' is a manifestation of one thing only:
the abandonment of 3.5 x income as a basis for mortgage lending"
Eh? Mortgages are not actually required to effect this polarisation. In fact they actually serve to mitigate it's effects slightly until the polarisation becomes so large that arbitrary rules such as 3.5 are abandoned.
The abandonment of 3.5 is a symptom, not a cause.
"It is certainly not through some secret political agenda to entrench the rich."
True, but that's because it's unconscious. Most people who support this shambles don't realise they're doing it, because all they see is their own property and how hard *they* had to work for it. It's just as much politics of envy as anything else that would be called such.
"If anything British politics (in the guise of centrism) has shifted leftwards and we have become more and more socialist as though by default."
It's not a surprise though. It's the inevitable result of our previous choices. Politics shifts left as more and more become dispossessed (and as that happens most by birth it tends to be generational), and if land reform is not recognised as the solution then socialism is what gets embraced. It gets embraced because to a limited extent it works. The chaos of its side effects is seen as an acceptable price to pay.
During the decline of wealth creating industry (which began long before property owneship became an obsession)
The effects of perpetual property rights have been plaguing us long before the current house mania. The concept of LVT is several centuries old.
How else to do this but through encouraging debt ?
Through land reform. That's how you do it. For sure all the issues with banks are real issues, but they wouldn't be nearly so problematic if we weren't using bank lending to circumvent our landlessness.
The ramping of asset values, sometimes through benefits, has far less to do with keeping the rich rich than it does keeping us all solvent.
We do not need high house prices to be solvent. That is the final deception, that if we don't buy in we'll destroy civilisation. See Mark's debt-for-equity posts.
EK (and others):
I'll have one last punt at explaining your logic, see inline comments below:
Well, that depends on what line of country you're in and where you live. Landlords can only raise rents to a level that the market can afford.
Nope. It ALWAYS happens. Its a proportional not absolute relationship.
"Taxes are increased further to pay benefits."
Why exactly? This line does not follow. I don’t disagree but you have leapt
I disagree. The poorer have never be fatter and never have their homes been so well appointed as they are today - exceeding the expectations of the middle classes of yesterday and - in some well publicised cases - exceeding the middle classes of today.
You don't seem to be observing simple facts? In proportion to the total wealth produced the wealth gap grows. Yet the poor can still get no more than a bare living at current day levels, nor are they FREE, they are fully enslaved in order to pay the rent/interest. This can be shown in fact so easily it hurts. I have already furnished evidence a stupid child could understand twice on this post. Have you read it yet?
Robin. Yes I do own land. And yes. I do aspire to own more of it.
I know you do. I could tell from the very first post. The Matrix has you pretty hard. Its normal conservative behaviour. We see it daily. Its is so visible in homeowners its funny. Those worst affected seem to be money reformers. Are you a money reformer too?
I understand that it can go both up and down in value and that there is risk and effort involved in both acquiring it and holding on to it (which the author omitted to mention.)
Please show me the risk and work involved. I see none. I see lots of bail outs. I see lots of other peoples wealth put at risk. Show me please what you are risking and the work you are doing...If you can I will be delighted. You will be the first ever to have achieved that magic
I also understand that I am not exluded by reason of birth, creed or class from seeking title to land/property. This is distinct from the serf-like and self pitying attitude which the author seems to display.
I dont get what you are saying here? You talk about rights yet say its fine to deny themto others. What do you mean? Why do you have special rights but others not?
F, ta for back up, excellent work.
RS, see what Fraggles says.
Mark, how close is this to being a record number of comments?
B, fairly close. There were about 40 comments on one post I did on Citizen's Income.
Or possibly it was one on LVT, when the Faux Libertarians used to drop in try to persuade me that All Taxes Are Bad, which glosses over the fact that LVT will always be collected, the only question is, should it be collected privately or publicly?
I/we made the fatal mistake of trying to talk logic on this post... before asking the principle moral question:
Are you a landowner
That is, are you receiving an unearned income and are you trying to defend that with twisted logic, against the principles of any reasonable person?
Forget about the practical politics until after then.
Why do we do this I wonder. Are we hoping we can solve it without appealing to the moral sense?
RS, I've warned you about this sort of behaviour before. This is a polite 'blog and one does not win a difficult argument* by insulting other commenters.
* Actually the argument is very simple. But the Home-Owner-Ists have spent centuries getting their propaganda into place, such that most people firmly believe it (for example that there is no distinction between 'land owner' and 'capitalist', and that the big distinction is between 'capitalists & landowners' and 'workers') and this brain washing has to be delicately pulled away, layer by layer and threas by thread.
MW Hmm I don't understand you:
Can you tell me what I've said that is insulting and who has been insulted ? Or are you joking?
I'm saying the argument is very much simpler. That we do not want to talk morals. That may or may not make people happy.
The point is: IS IT TRUE?
If it is and we do not want to go there, I'd be quite happy to be expelled, no problem. So...?
The intellect grasps this truth after toilsome effort -- but the moral sense reaches it quickly by intuition
RS, I don't do 'morals' because the Home-Owner-Ists hit straight back with "It's moi laarnd and I have paid for it, so to charge me tax or ground rent is theft. And theft is immoral."
My view is that our current systems of landownership and taxation (and banking, regulation, welfare, EUrocracy etc etc) make us all quite measurably poorer; true 'winners' from all this are few and far between. That's a much simpler argument as it is a question of fact and evidence (backed up by logic) as much as 'morals'.
Then of course comes the discussion - why is it 'morally' better for people to be wealthier and happier over all..?
I know you don't do morals. Neither do the ones you mention. That is the whole point.
Is it any wonder therefore we are in so much do do? We are both in error.
We don't have to intellectually prove something before we can proceed. We only have to know it is right not to do it. Homeownerists know its wrong but the force making them go on is more powerful: Fear of poverty. Ranks close and it goes political. And then they elect those to "do gods work"
Moral things are built in through natural law. That is, if we harmonise with them we will be rewarded. If we oppose them we will be punished.
My point above is that we can reach a firm decision very much more quickly just by appealing to the moral sense. Easy peasy. I'm both a simplicity and morals campaigner.
Are you un-insulted now? I was worried you were going to do a Richard Murphy on me back there (:
xxx
RS, this is my blog and a public space where people are invited to insult me. I thought you were unnecessarily aggressive towards EK.
Like I said, my 'morals' are that a system under which people are wealthier, freer, happier etc is 'better'. Fundamental reform of land 'ownership' and taxation (and a hundred other things, like leaving the EU) are merely means to that end.
MW
Aha. Can you tell me how exactly I was unnecessarily aggressive towards EK?
That is, what did I say that was not true?
I still have not helped you understand the point about morals. But its quite simple and saves time. What gives?
I find on many occasions that when I reach a point of certainty in a dialogue, a point where the other must change their mind about a core belief, I'm accused of being alien, arrogant or offensive. Some times that is projected onto others. Might that be the case here with you? On morals?
Now. What have I said that is not true? Else will you withdraw your allegation please?
RS, my 'morals' also include not getting involved in arguments over "who said what".
I am not disputing the underlying accuracy of your comments, I was pointing out that saying to e.g. EK things like "The Matrix has you pretty hard." does not really help you get the message across. That's why I prefer Fraggles much gentler approach.
I'm not sure I want to be invoked as an exemplar in this argument. To be honest, I thought I was a bit unnecessarily terse myself!
For what it's worth Robin I personally cringed at "I have already furnished evidence a stupid child could understand twice on this post. Have you read it yet?"
The intellect grasps this truth after toilsome effort -- but the moral sense reaches it quickly by intuition
That was certainly true in my case. During my stint as a faux libertarian I could follow the logic, but it never really sat right with me. I just knew something was wrong. It wasn't till I heard about LVT that I knew what that something was.
Hearts *and* minds, people! :)
Are you a landowner
I am a landowner (in a very small way). The money I have invested in land earns me considerably less than it would in a savings account: that's not why I bought it. I am also a landlord. I see myself as in the service industry, providing accomodation. Also I believe LVT is the way forward, even though I, personally would be worse off, because I can see that my being worse off would only be temporary, that I would be worse off now, simply because I'm better off now (I chose to go into the business I am in now because of the tax advantages), and I think that addressing evils like the overpricing of property is more important than personal considerations.
That is, are you receiving an unearned income and are you trying to defend that with twisted logic, against the principles of any reasonable person?
Does that sound like twisted logic, against the principles of any reasonable person to you?
Excellent thread.
Glad to see someone talk sense about socialism. That is, it IS a prgamtaic and logical idea, but utterly unworkable as discovered by Mises. Essentially the 'socialists', as are their wont, blamed the wrong thing and went down the 'you do what we tell you and everything will be alright' route, instead of seeing that landownership/private taxes dressed up as rents were the problem. They seem unable to see the difference hence the failure of agriculture under the Soviet system.
LVT gives the best overall result by leaving ownership, and hence incentive, in the hands of occupiers, but collects the private tax component of rent for the 'State'.
Well, that's what I think anyway.
F, B, L, thanks, yes, agreed.
Post a Comment