Thursday, 29 October 2015

Killer Arguments Against LVT, Not (374)

Today both @K_Niemietz & @MrRBourne mentioned the state's historic absence. It was never so:— Land & Liberty (@Land_Liberty) October 29, 2015

BenJamin's favourite Faux Lib responded:

@Land_Liberty @MrRBourne Oh, your theory that if the state dished out free land, call centre workers would become happy subsistence farmers.>— Kristian Niemietz (@K_Niemietz) October 29, 2015

Your truly responded:

@K_Niemietz @Land_Liberty Instead of being call centre workers struggling to pay the rent, their net disposable income after housing costs would go up 50%! - Mark Wadsworth (@Mark_Wadsworth) October 29, 2015

See also: "If we had LVT, smallholders and subsistence farmers would be wiped out." If the Homeys make two equal and opposite arguments, we know that at least one of them must be incorrect and usually both.


Random said...

"Dishing out free land"??
Under LVT, you have to pay for your land.

Mark Wadsworth said...

R, well yes and no.

Collect the land rents and dish it out as citizen's income, welfare, pensions, higher tax free personal allowance or benefits in kind (NHS, schools), that way everybody gets their share of the land rent, however indirectly.

Analogy: Mercedes manufacture cars and sell them for cash, the net profits go to shareholders as a cash dividend. They do not pay a dividend of a small fraction of a car per share. So Mercedes shareholders get their share of the car value added in cash. if you have enough shares and accumulate your dividends long enough, you can buy yourself a new Mercedes.