tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post2112598520305393528..comments2024-03-05T10:52:24.691+00:00Comments on Mark Wadsworth: Things which cancel each other out.Mark Wadsworthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-21375716866609054842017-07-07T12:27:02.296+01:002017-07-07T12:27:02.296+01:00DBC, of the two, I prefer Sentinel Tax to prop 13....DBC, of the two, I prefer Sentinel Tax to prop 13.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-74348434688956210362017-07-07T11:23:42.394+01:002017-07-07T11:23:42.394+01:00As the coiner of the phrase "Sentinel Tax&quo...As the coiner of the phrase "Sentinel Tax" I should explain that it derives from the original LVT proposed by John Stuart Mill in the programme of the Land Tenure Reform Association in 1871. This the Association makes "clear" ( as far as their late nineteenth century language allows) is dependant on the premise that"whatever value the land may have acquired at the time when the principle they contend for shall obtain the assent of Parliament, they do not propose to interfere with".So they leave the present land values as found and intercept the "Future Unearned Increase" or unearned increment.<br />This would make it easier to get popular support now: people demanding the right to unearned capital gains from the country's land will be shown up for what they are; with the Georgist Tax they can claim to have been deprived of what they own.<br />( JS Mill's papa had lain down the law fifty years earlier "Where land has, however, been converted into private property without making rent in a peculiar manner answerable for the public expenses, where it has been bought and sold upon such terms and the expectations of individuals have been adjusted to that order of things, rent could not be taken to supply exclusively the wants of government without injustice". James Mill "Elements of Political Economy 1821).This kind of attitude is still deeply ingrained, probably irremovably.<br />In 2008 I tried to get Land Taxers to consider the Sentinel Tax because it would obviously be best to introduce it when land values were down to stop them going up again.The usual shower of abuse ensued. <br />My supposition was that the tax would be re-rated every tax year.Once the guarantee of unearned untaxed capital gains in land value was removed, it was likely that people would regain a natural caution (the way people thought twice about homeownership in the time of Schedule A pre 1963).They would not declare on their tax forms that house had gone up in value because of the certainty of tax. Values would drift down and, once decline had set in, there might be a disinflationary spiral.<br />The Sentinel Tax deserves consideration.<br />In the hands of insensate right wingers, George's tax would serve to rescue demand from the exactions of the land market but only so they could seize on any augmented demand to flog stuff without doing anything to improve productivity.<br />I commend a return to a natural Macmillanite mixed economy with a Sentinel LVT replacing Schedule A on houses. <br />As I used to say when teaching: originality is discouraged, all of this stuff has been thought out before.DBC Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891849727783879145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-77495940027952229462017-07-07T09:34:10.080+01:002017-07-07T09:34:10.080+01:00I suspect that this all driven by the classic poli...I suspect that this all driven by the classic political / bureaucratic technique of concentrating benefits and distributing costs. So buying ones constituency. It does not pay bureaucrats to simplify rules. The complexity of rules is what gives them power and wealth.Lolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04586735342675041312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-56883591109550774832017-07-07T08:00:18.078+01:002017-07-07T08:00:18.078+01:00"because it is possible to separate the land ..."because it is possible to separate the land from the subsidy entitlement and sell them separately;"<br /><br />That is something so bizarre that it would be rejected as too unlikely if it occurred in fiction. Can anyone think of a good reason for this state of affairs except as a boon to speculators? I suppose at least you can't claim the subsidy without owning the land, even though the reverse is true. The same is true, AFAIK, of milk quotas.<br /><br />"At some point, owners of agricultural land are getting paid more to sit on their bottoms than to grow crops"<br /><br />Set-aside payments were abolished in 2008, according to Wikipedia. However, while they lasted, the landowners didn't sit on their bottoms, they grew "set-aside allowable" crops on their land, like flax.Bayardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15211150959757982948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-60394544056519791132017-07-06T21:32:00.046+01:002017-07-06T21:32:00.046+01:00Don't the EU CAP payments not to grow crops al...Don't the EU CAP payments not to grow crops also enter the equation? At some point, owners of agricultural land are getting paid more to sit on their bottoms than to grow crops Graemehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11007306140530173428noreply@blogger.com