Killer Arguments Against LVT, Not (182)

The Home-Owner-Ists love using false comparisons. They refuse to look at the LVT/Citizen's Income system in the round, which enables them to convince themselves that somehow everybody would be worse off, despite it being abundantly clear that nearly everybody would be better off, if nothing else, there would be the huge boost to the economy by shifting taxation from personal incomes and output to consumption of public goods (i.e. land rents).

So they say things like this: "LVT is unfair to small households and single people, because they would have to pay as much as a larger household or a family [in the same sized house] even though they consume less public services. Not only that, the larger household or family would receive much more in Citizen's Income payments."

And with the next breath they say things like this: "LVT is anti-family, because families need bigger houses and so would have to pay more in LVT."

i. So it'd be helpful if they could make up their minds whether they are going to portray LVT/CI as pro-family or anti-family, even though in truth it is neither, the system is completely indifferent between the two, it's up to individuals to organise their own lives as they see fit. As it happens, by and large, the current system is very anti-family, so compared to that, LVT/CI is pro-family, but only in relative terms.

With the first statement, they jumble up taxation and spending, which are two separate issues.

ii. For example, let's agree that some tax receipts are spent on children's education (preferably via education vouchers). Every child benefits equally; adults will have benefited from it in the past and parents will benefit from the ongoing subsidy; the economy and society as a whole benefit if people are properly educated (certainly up to GSCE or A level - beyond that stage, the private benefits to the student far outweigh the benefit to society as a whole). The same logic applies to any universal benefit, such as taxpayer funded health care or even the Citizen's Income.

iii. The taxation is the other side, under LVT/CI households are not expected to pay for 'public services' as such (it would be madness to try and finance a Citizen's Income with a Poll Tax, for example), they are merely expected to honour their half of the agreement by which the state excludes 'everybody else' from their randomly assigned plot of land.

It's the same as paying for petrol for your car, it costs the same per litre whether you travel in a small car or a big car; whether you travel alone or with four other people - how much petrol you want to use and how many people you want to share your car with is up to you. What the state does with those tax receipts or what the oil industry does with its profits is a separate issue.

iv. The first statement assumes that the size or value of each household's plot of land is entirely independent of its income or needs; the second statement assumes that families always occupy larger or more valuable plots. The irony is that while the first assumption is probably true under our Home-Owner-Ist system, it is exactly young people and families who are being clobbered anyway - they are the ones who have to pay top whack for housing as well as paying a disproportionate share of taxation, so the second statement is pure crocodile tears.

v. The first statement correctly takes CI into account (which would benefit larger households and families relative to smaller ones) and the second statement just completely ignores it. There is some truth to the second claim that in the long run under LVT/CI, families would tend to occupy the larger/more valuable plots, but then this solves the first dilemma, doesn't it? The larger households are occupying larger plots, receiving more in benefits and paying more in tax - problem solved.

vi. And so on. The Homeys jump back and forth from half-truth to half-lie and only ever highlight the down sides for Worthy People and highlight the upsides for The Undeserving, so they will only ever compare a Hard Working And Responsible Pensioner* with the group of investment bankers sharing the house next door and ask why the former should be clobbered and the latter should benefit; they will never, ever compare the Retired Civil Service Fat Cat with the group of school teachers or nurses sharing the house next door, oh no, that just won't do, will it?

* Clearly, to make the system fly politically, pensioners would have to be exempted or given huge discounts for the time being, in the long run, they'd pay full whack but with relieving provisions such as much higher state pensions, deferments etc.