[Truth To Power]

when the state audited county returns they sent the bill to the County Sheriff, not the individual taxpayer.

Just as a modern government holds retailers liable for sales taxes, not individual consumers, because it is the retailer who collects and remits the tax even though the consumer pays it.

Example:

Adam Fischer (b. ca 1736 d. 1787), Frederick County Sheriff, Maryland 1782- 85(?); collector of taxes, Frederick County, in office 1785.

His property was seized after his death to pay £7,690.3.0, tax monies he allegedly owed the state as Frederick County tax collector.

A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature 1635-1789 by Edward C. Papenfuse, et. al.

Just as a modern government would attach the estate of a retailer (or, much more often, go to the head of the line of creditors in the event of a retailer's bankruptcy) to recover sales taxes not remitted. And just as in the case of the county sheriff, the tax liability would not depend on how much the consumers had actually paid in tax, but on how much taxable merchandise the retailer sold, as that is the legal basis for calculation of the tax. It still doesn't change who is paying the tax.

[TheRedBaron]

@ Truth-To-Power

You could start with this:

Open letter to Mikhail Gorbachev (1990) (The link is defunct TRB)

It identifies most of the relevant facts, and is signed by dozens of eminent Western economists, including four (count 'em, four) Nobel laureates.

OK, you can not ignore Scitovsky, Tobin, Musgrave, Modigliani, Baumol, Solow and Kahn. Besides, their arguments are indeed interesting. However, the letter pertains to Russia, which in 1990 was in an exceptional position. For instance, they argue that "any effort to dispose of all of it in a short period would result in an extreme depression in prices offered". So the statement is not applicable to any arbitrary state. I must still read this thread, and then will give additional comments.

By the way, the other laureates did not sign.

[Truth To Power]

@ Truth-To-Power

OK, you can not ignore Scitovsky, Tobin, Musgrave, Modigliani, Baumol, Solow and Kahn.

And Vickrey, and Griliches, and Helliwell...

Besides, their arguments are indeed interesting.

As well as indisputable.

However, the letter pertains to Russia, which in 1990 was in an exceptional position. For instance, they argue that "any effort to dispose of all of it in a short period would result in an extreme depression in prices offered". So the statement is not applicable to any arbitrary state. I must still read this thread, and then will give additional comments.

Please do.

By the way, the other laureates did not sign.

Most were not asked. The letter was organized by Tideman and Vickrey, and they only asked people they thought would be willing to take a public stand on the issue which was at that time of some urgency. It must be admitted in retrospect that the signatories were absolutely right, and the mainstream neoclassicals whose advice was actually taken were horribly wrong, to Russia's and the world's massive harm. The signatories covered themselves with glory, and got the biggest I-told-you-so rights in the history of economics.

[TheRedBaron]

@ Truth-To-Power

Please do.

I will. But since land value taxation also concerns property rights, I must first study the new institutional economics.

[Truth To Power]

I will. But since land value taxation also concerns property rights, I must first study the new institutional economics.

LVT concerns property rights, but in the opposite way from other taxes. Other taxes abrogate genuine, valid property rights, the property rights of producers in what they have produced. LVT only removes a legal privilege of taking the fruits of others' labor, which was never valid property, any more than title deeds to slaves were valid property.

A land title is in essence a license to steal. Is it better to tax the "property right" of licenses to steal, or to steal the rightful property of producers in what they have produced?

Our current system forcibly steals people's rights to use land and gives those rights to landowners as their private "property"; it then makes the victims of that theft pay landowners for access to the opportunities to work, contribute and produce -- which government, the community and nature, not the landowner, provide -- in order to survive; it then steals, by taxation, a portion of what the productive produce, and gives to landowners in return for nothing!

How much analysis is needed to understand that land value taxation is the solution to most of what ails our economy and society?

[Scrybe]

Georgist here. While I'm not entirely certain that a land value tax would work, I don't think either socialism or capitalism are working.

You don't change history by playing it safe. That is why I support the LVT, as an experiment and see if it is the answer we are looking for. At the very least, I think the LVT should at least be given a chance.

I think a Georgist society could work just fine, but not without significant changes in society and overcoming some obstacles.

[Truth To Power]

Georgist here.

A Georgist is a follower of Henry George. But George's ideas have been superseded in modern analysis; so while I recognize his contributions, I also recognize that he was wrong about some things, so I neither call nor consider myself a Georgist. I am a geoist, meaning someone who believes that valid property rights can only originate in an act of production, which brings the product into existence in the producer's hands. Natural resources like land (the earth, "geo") can thus never rightly be private property, and those who exclude others from them must rightly make just compensation to the community of those excluded.

In fact, I have found that anti-geoists like to characterize anyone who advocates location subsidy repayment (LSR) as a "Georgist" because it makes it easy to dismiss them as a personality cultist. Geoists should stop calling themselves "Georgists." It's not about Henry George. It's about liberty, justice, and truth.

While I'm not entirely certain that a land value tax would work,

In some circumstances land value taxation doesn't work, such as when land value is dominated by expectations of future rents rather than current rents, or when land is publicly owned, and thus has no exchange value. LSR is a more accurate, general, and descriptive term.

I don't think either socialism or capitalism are working.

That's the key to understanding economics: socialism and capitalism are both based on the pretense that land (natural resources) and capital (products of labor devoted to production) are effectively the same. The socialist pretends capital is land to justify stealing capital; the capitalist pretends land is capital to justify stealing land. The geoist understands the difference, and treats them both appropriately according to what they in fact are.

You don't change history by playing it safe. That is why I support the LVT, as an experiment and see if it is the answer we are looking for.

It might not be "the" answer, but it is necessary to any genuine answer.

At the very least, I think the LVT should at least be given a chance.

If LSR is ever seriously tried, its superiority to existing revenue systems will be so obvious that opposition will disappear. Non-geoist societies will simply be unable to compete.

I think a Georgist society could work just fine, but not without significant changes in society and overcoming some obstacles.

The biggest one is landowner greed, but the monetary (banking) system is also a problem, as it relies on landowner privilege for something to lend for and against. In many societies monetary reform should come before, and is needed to pave the way for, LSR. It is also easier to achieve, as so few people profit from bankster privilege relative to those who (mostly incorrectly) believe they profit from landowner privilege.

[benj]

And Vickrey, and Griliches, and Helliwell...

As well as indisputable.

Please do.

Most were not asked. The letter was organized by Tideman and Vickrey, and they only asked people they thought would be willing to take a public stand on the issue which was at that time of some urgency. It must be admitted in retrospect that the signatories were absolutely right, and the mainstream neoclassicals whose advice was actually taken were horribly wrong, to Russia's and the world's massive harm. The signatories covered themselves with glory, and got the biggest I-told-you-so rights in the history of economics.

I've often thought this would make a great documentary film. It would also be a relevant introduction to the subject for most people without ramming it down their necks.

[Scrybe]

A Georgist is a follower of Henry George. But George's ideas have been superseded in modern analysis; so while I recognize his contributions, I also recognize that he was wrong about some things, so I neither call nor consider myself a Georgist. I am a geoist, meaning someone who believes that valid property rights can only originate in an act of production, which brings the product into existence in the producer's hands. Natural resources like land (the earth, "geo") can thus never rightly be private property, and those who exclude others from them must rightly make just compensation to the community of those excluded.

In fact, I have found that anti-geoists like to characterize anyone who advocates location subsidy repayment (LSR) as a "Georgist" because it makes it easy to dismiss them as a personality cultist. Geoists should stop calling themselves "Georgists." It's not about Henry George. It's about liberty, justice, and truth.

In some circumstances land value taxation doesn't work, such as when land value is dominated by expectations of future rents rather than current rents, or when land is publicly owned, and thus has no exchange value. LSR is a more accurate, general, and descriptive term.

That's the key to understanding economics: socialism and capitalism are both based on the pretense that land (natural resources) and capital (products of labor devoted to production) are effectively the same. The socialist pretends capital is land to justify stealing capital; the capitalist pretends land is capital to justify stealing land. The geoist understands the difference, and treats them both appropriately according to what they in fact are.

It might not be "the" answer, but it is necessary to any genuine answer.

If LSR is ever seriously tried, its superiority to existing revenue systems will be so obvious that opposition will disappear. Non-geoist societies will simply be unable to compete.

The biggest one is landowner greed, but the monetary (banking) system is also a problem, as it relies on landowner privilege for something to lend for and against. In many societies monetary reform should come before, and is needed to pave the way for, LSR. It is also easier to achieve, as so few people profit from bankster privilege relative to those who (mostly incorrectly) believe they profit from landowner privilege.

Thanks for your repsonse! I've learned some things. I wasn't aware that Georgism and Geoism were different, I thought they were interchangeable terms. I'll certainly look more into the LSR.