Killer Arguments Against LVT, not (89)

Former Tory linked to an article entitled A CRITIQUE OF GEORGISM, which is the ultimate straw man exercise and is basically just propaganda pumped out by the intellectual wing of the Home-Owner-Ist movement, also known as Faux Libertarians. He kicks off with this:

There are many versions of Georgism, ranging from rhetorical formulations barely distinguishable from communism, to voluntary market-based arrangements sometimes described as geo-libertarian.

Correct.

Of all the supporters of Land Value Tax/Citizen's income whom I have met, there have been Communists, socialists, Greens, libertarians, free-market liberals, you name it, even half dozen Ukippers. Presumably there are also racist, nationalist, authoritarian or Rastafarian Georgists (although I have yet to meet many).

It is difficult to get a clear picture of Georgist doctrine, because its apologists tend to slide illegitimately from one version to another logically incompatible one, according to the exigencies of the argument.

Nope. It's easy to get a clear picture of Georgism - replace as many taxes as possible with taxes on 'land values' (i.e. use of natural resources, state-protected monopolies or however you wish to define it, but by and large, this means 'land value' in the literal sense), use the proceeds to pay for the core functions of the state and dish out the rest as a Citizen's Income. Surely that is clear enough?

And all these different arguments in favour of Georgism are complementary and not in any way contradictory. I'm really not too fussed about Greenie issues, for example, but as a matter of fact, imposing LVT/paying out a Citizen's Income would encourage more efficient use of land and buildings within developed areas and labour-intensive rather than chemical-intensive farming methods (for example), and if that's good for the environment and people's quality of life, well that's a bonus. Seeing as 'organic' and 'normal' food competes in the same market place, it is then up to consumers to decide whether they are willing to pay the extra (and most won't, so the issue sorts itself out).

In any event, because of centuries of brain washing, most people grudgingly accept that income tax is an OK tax - the socialists and Greenies would like the top rate of income tax to be 100%, the capitalists would prefer a flat 20%, but that in itself does not make income tax a good idea or a bad idea.

We may charitably assume that this is because they often lack a sufficiently precise or coherent understanding of their own beliefs and proposals. Readers who seek to debate with Georgists should beware of this propensity (a very human failing which Georgists are by no means alone in falling prey to).

I have a perfectly 'precise and coherent understanding' of my own beliefs, I am perfectly happy to explain the advantages from a free-market, small government liberal viewpoint.

For sure, if I'm arguing with a Christian, I will point out different things than if I am arguing with a businessman; and if I am arguing with a Greenie I will mention different things yet again, but this is no different to explaining to a Christian that a bicycle is a splendid means of transport because you can more easily communicate with your fellow citizens; I will tell a businessman that a bicycle is a cheap and efficient means of transport; I will tell a Greenie that a bicycle does not use fossil fuels; and to a health fanatic or nature freak I would explain other advantages yet again. That is not, in itself, an argument against bicycles, is it?

The author of the article then signs of thusly:

"My conclusions are that the single tax would not be beneficial, but would lead to economically damaging changes in land use and loss of capital investment. The Georgists' goals would not be met."

OK (deep breath).

Does he anywhere explain why income tax is beneficial? Or Value Added Tax or National Insurance? Does he explain how these are not damaging, why land is used much more efficiently if incumbents can own it for free but new entrants have to pay over the odds?

Does he even define 'capital investment'? And even if he did, why would scrapping taxes on the income from that capital investment not greatly increase the amount thereof? Has the author ever read Adam Smith?

And as to "The Georgists' goals would not be met", the goals are quite simple - replace as many taxes as possible with LVT, use the proceeds to pay for the core functions of the state and dish out the rest as a Citizen's Income. Those are the goals. Like the (stated) goal of Thatcherism was to liberalise and privatise stuff - this had good and bad effects, but the effects were not the goal, the goal was to liberalise and privatise, for better or worse. There are plenty of countries who implemented Georgism in some way, shape or form (including the UK), and the results have always been surprisingly positive. Unless they've rewritten the laws of supply and demand, it is fair to assume that these positive effects will always result.

Continued page 94.