What forms of taxation is promoted by the Austrian School?

Economics Economics Questions
101

Not at all. My facts remain uncontested. Taxes are anti-market. This is a website full of free marketers, for the most part supporting anarchy. Your statements about different styles of government are irrelevant to us.

I’m not going to waste my time reading about Georgism. Georgism supports a state, and taxes. I support neither, and in fact adamantly oppose both. You cannot justify Georgism without justifying taxes and the state, which you have failed to do, as hundreds who have come here with your arrogance, also fail to do.

There is no argument for coercion in the name of equality of justice.

No one is going to fall for this crap. It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat your ends, you are arrogant for assuming that those ends are the ends of everyone in this forum, let alone the world. Maybe it’s because you’re 16. Maybe it’s because Georgism is crankery.

Sure, but that has everything to do with the state, not with free markets, libertarianism or anarchism. It’s a strawman, that frankly doesn’t even make sense. And as far as commuting, people choose to do it. You should learn to mind your own business, instead of imagining victims you will save, when it’s likely you’ve never even had a full time job, let alone understand the compromises we all make to thrive and survive in the marketplace.

A good dose of humility and an introduction to praxeology would probably do you some good.

Why are you here? You don’t seem to have a clue about Austrianism or Libertarianism. You don’t seem to be familiar with our school of thought. Isn’t there somewhere else (maybe a marxist forum) where you could go and peddle crazy? I mean, it is insulting that you are here, confronting us, without acknowledging any of our arguments. Arrogance. Ignorance.

102

Neither can water. Or Air. Or Gold. So?

~ And hence why we do not tax air - it is a common good - if you started charing people to breath, there would be outrage. Anyways, land, while essential like air, is also a factor of production (i.e. it is scarce) and all wealth is labour and capital applied over land, directly or indirectly.

We don’t make utilitarian arguments. The market finds the acceptable efficiencies through competition. Not through arbitrary systems to confront scarcity.

~ Well, David Friedman does - he argues that anarcho-capitalism does not intend well but the outcomes are good. Anyways, thats my criticism of you guys: your ideas are inaccessible to the general public and therefore meaningless.

Ok, but you will eventually get banned here, so I would tone down the socialism a bit. Fruitful debate is good, trolling is bad.

~ Well, you’re the one calling everyone a socialist. It is utterly immature. You defy reason - Marx wanted to eliminate the family, centralise everything, abolish free trade, introduce protectionism - Georgism as we saw in practice is utterly opposed to Marxist ideology. It makes my blood boil that your system of thought is like neoclassical economics - falling into Hume’s is-ought fallacy arguing what things ought to be like, but they are not like that in reality.

Georgists have nothing going for them. Libertarianism and Austrian economics just ran a very successful Presidential bid, organized thousands of people around the world, and is booming. The Mises Institute is more successful than other ideological enterprises because it UNDERSTANDS and embraces CAPITALISM without state subsidy.

~ Um, sorry? 3 British Prime Ministers, 3 Australian Prime Ministers, 2 American Presidents, Swiss Presidents and 17 Nobel Prize Winners were Georgists. Exponents of a single tax include Hayek (who actually entered economics because of Henry George, whom he cited as his greatest influence: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_2_63/ai_n6141843/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1 ), Will Vickery, Murray Rothbard (early in his career, however, started being critical of Georgism later on - but as we will see most of his critcisms are flawed), Samuel Griffith (Australian founding father), Milton Friedman (while dissocating himself from the movement, called it the “only good tax - the Henry George argument of so many years ago”), Albert Einstein, Paul Samuelson, Winston Churchill (here is a speech he gave on the topic: http://www.grundskyld.dk/2-churchill-uk.html ), William Buckley, Frank Chodorov, Stephen Moore and Albert Jay Nock, among others. Other than Australia, Hong Kong (LVT provides 35% of government revenue), Switzerland, Signapore, Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania* (which uses LVT to fund education vouchers) and Japan in the 19th century adopted Georgist policies - to some extent.

Furthermore, you understand “capitalism” yet you don’t get how rents are created - capitalism is summed up in one equation - P = R + W + I - Austrians have create analysis of W (wages) and I (interest and capital), but not R (rent) - hence where Georgism comes in. I showed you London’s market failures are a result of large rents, eating away at profits, I show you how monopoly and predactory pricing is a result of failed land policy and you still manage to utter “we understand the market” - yet the market cannot be free when LANDOWNERS LOCK OUT OF THE CAPITAL AND LABOR MARKET.

You seem to forget yes libertarianism was popular - but Obama, the leftie, won - Obama - the man who stressed “market failure” in every speech. As I said, a land market that is not lubricated prevents a free market, allowing government to produce handy pretexts. That hardly constitutes a “victory”.

Policy fails period. Only the market can succeed, if it is left unhindered. You’re just proposing a different policy. Austrians understand that every intervention into the market, creates a crisis. There is not “ultimate answer” for all of mankind, and all attempts to homogenize the market and behaviour that way, always fails spectacularly.

~ No, Hong Kong and Switzerland are doing pretty damn fine. Also, LVT does not create a crisis EMPIRICALLY - a crisis implies deadweight loss - guess what? Land has no deadweight loss! In fact, it increases supply and makes sure that prices are rational - average house prices in Australia are 8 times he average wage. It lubricated the land market - the facts easily contradict your point - 90% homeownership is Pittsburgh - where employment is rising, as is homeownership.

103

For the same reason that Jehovah’s Witnesses hand out pamphlets at metro stations. The goal of a cultist is to evangelize at any cost.

104

Not at all. My facts remain uncontested. Taxes are anti-market. This is a website full of free marketers, for the most part supporting anarchy. Your statements about different styles of government are irrelevant to us. Georgism supports a state, and taxes.

~ Rent, is not a tax. It is a surplus by definition.

There is no argument for coercion in the name of equality of justice.

~ I believe justice and efficiency are not mutually exclusive forces.

No one is going to fall for this crap. It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat your ends, you are arrogant for assuming that those ends are the ends of everyone in this forum, let alone the world. Maybe it’s because you’re 16. Maybe it’s because Georgism is crankery.

~ So, you support less homeownership, higher levels of unemployment and more crime. My point is your ideas are doomed to failure as one they don’t address the land market and two the same problems under the status quo will exist under your system (as they do in Somalia - a stateless society) - thereby legitmating government intervention for the general public (predatory pricing, lack of competition, monopoly etc).

Sure, but that has everything to do with the state, not with free markets, libertarianism or anarchism. It’s a strawman, that frankly doesn’t even make sense. And as far as commuting, people choose to do it. You should learn to mind your own business, instead of imagining victims you will save, when it’s likely you’ve never even had a full time job, let alone understand the compromises we all make to thrive and survive in the marketplace.

~ No, there is public outcry in London regarding this element of Riccardo’s Law - population and wages go up, they get eaten by landowners who did not contribute to the transaction in the labour and capital markets - they have a free lunch. I would regard the hundreds of businesses complaining about land monopoly not to be a strawman but a reality. I know. My family owns land. We increase rents annually. The fact is this is quiet rape - rape of workers who have to travel 5 hrs and pay (get this - 45% of after tax wages on rent) - rape of market entry due to high rents and competition, rape of the capitalist who could of invested in machinery instead of paying exoberant rents. Therefore, one cannot “thrive” when they are LOCKED out from the market due to idle land and monopolies - which YOUR own Austrians like Hayek and Krizner observed!

Why are you here? You don’t seem to have a clue about Austrianism or Libertarianism. You don’t seem to be familiar with our school of thought. Isn’t there somewhere else (maybe a marxist forum) where you could go and peddle crazy? I mean, it is insulting that you are here, confronting us, without acknowledging any of our arguments. Arrogance. Ignorance.

~ Because you are the ignorant one! I have been quoting Hayek and Kirzner and Yeager who agree with George and his analysis - I have not seen you quote or apply any of these writers. I suggest you be the one who reads these authors and observe what they say about LVT! Thus, I am here to enlighten you - who clearly purports to know about Hayek and other Austrians, yet has not quoted or examined any of their views on Mr. George.

105

For the same reason that Jehovah’s Witnesses hand out pamphlets at metro stations. The goal of a cultist is to evangelize at any cost.

~ Someone hates freedom of religion. Anyways, religion is metaphysics, Georgism is postivism (still no one here has produced an empirical ) - just calling everyone socialist does not mean .

106

Semantic games. It is a tax.

That’s irrelevant to my statement. You cannot have equality of justice, if you believe in coercion.

That’s a strawman.

Oh really? Which ideas?

Sure they do.

Somalia is not a stateless society.

Oh, do pray tell, which of my ideas create predatory pricing, lack of competition and monopoly?

You don’t have a clue about Austrian Economics.

How can I be ignorant, when you are the one posting strawmen?

Hayek and Kirzner are not Gods. My agreement with either of them ends, when their justification for a coercive state begins.

Have you looked around LvMI? Not to many people here talk about tax reform. For good reason. We’re for a free market. Hayek was not a genuine free marketer. He also wasn’t an ideal Austrian. This place is dedicated more to the ideas and legacy of Mises and Rothbard.

Unfortunately, you’re still caught up in coercion as a tool (which is socialism) and you’re caught up in regulation (taxes, which is socialism) and you’re cut up in the idea of the state, which again, is socialism. So sorry, but you’re just another socialist. And it’s terribly boring, because your utilitarian arguments, are all predicated on doing harm to others, in the name of social justice and progress.

107

Here, I spellchecked this for you:

I know. My family owns land. We increase rents annually. The fact is this is quiet rape - rape of workers who choose to travel 5 hrs and choose to pay (get this - 45% of after tax wages on rent) - rape of market entry due to high rents that people choose to pay and competition, rape of the capitalist who could of invested in machinery if they chose to instead of choosing to pay “exoberant” rents.

You’re welcome.

108

Good job. When I read the original passage, all I saw was rape, rape, rape. Felt like I was reading an Ayn Rand novel. [;)]

Back on topic, how dare these people make all of these free choices with their lives. Who do they think they, are choosing to travel and work? Live in the country but work in the city. OUTRAGEOUS!

109

Come on everyone it makes perfect sense.

We are going to use a land tax to raise the price of land ownership so that poor people can afford it.

110

Steven Spadijer, maybe there has been a misunderstanding, could you please explain why the LVT is not a ‘tax’?

Because from my perspective, it looks very much like a tax that you’re trying to rename. A person/group external to me, wants to take something that belongs to me, against my will - I would call that theft/taxation.

  1. If someone who already owned the land they were living on, wanted to be able to opt out of paying LVT, and also opt out of Georgism, would that be permitted? Or would the Georgist(is this the right word?) government violently coerce them into submission?

  2. What stops the Georgist government from just continually growing and taking more and more of a %age of the property value as LVT?

111

Like Hegel, you confuse verbosity with depth.

Seriously, a land value tax is an affront to private property. Socialism has been soundly dumped on the ash heap and only exists insofar as it has new suckers to feed from. And note that Socialism is more than Marxism, as you somehow believed that socialism is only Marxism with your statement that George hated Marx.

112

It doesn’t and can’t. Taxation cannot make anything more efficient, period. That’s like bombing a village into oblivion to save it. Spare us your Newspeak.

113

Don’t forget that this so called land tax is going to be paid in something other than land, ie dollars. I’d love to see the logic that proves why my possession of land entitles someone else to rob me of my dollars.

114

And don’t forget that the taxes will be used for the common greater good of the society community we promise. This time will be different.

115

The land value tax fallacy results from the belief that land is not produced by the market. In Henry George’s time this was a fact of the government monopoly on land. In a free market for land such a tax would create a disincentive to produce land value and thus be economically inefficient as any other tax.

116

I do not care what Wittgenstein is or isn’t. His arguments on private language (whether or not they’re correct) have NOTHING to do with this, and I am surprised you even brought them up in this context - perhaps you think he means something other than internal by “private”? BTW, how does consensus imply the imposition of a monopoly of force and the outlawry of all competition to it? Do explain this.

It is part of the services sector. So like healthcare, it can be and is socialized.

Smith was writing in the context of a state owning massive swathes of land, and which aided its nobility in controlling as much land as they pleased, the state being the biggest absentee owner of them all.

Yes, private as opposed to socialized defence of land. Nothing “barbaric” about it, unless you’re an utter and complete pacifist. Somalia is neither here nor there, but why do you keep bringing it up when it is demonstrably better off than comparable African countries? Ignorance? If you want to read up on the topic, go to the Tannehills’ Market for Liberty, Rothbard’s Ethics of Liberty and For a New Liberty and Hoppe’s Democracy - the God that failed. Rothbard’s Man, Economy & State with Power & the Market and Hoppe’s A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism are also relevant.

First answer my question as to how ownership and value are in any way connected with one another.

117

So it’s not just nonsense, but pure nonsense? Good to know.

118

~ Yes, but “local government” predated slavery - moreover, I was thinking of Switzerland, you know, the worlds most stable and second oldest democracy.

I might get spanked for this, but according to Stefan Molyneux, the first “local governments” were, in fact, slave owners administering their serfs.

And you may twist and turn it to your pleasure, but state government always has the taste of slavery. In one way or another, you’re being expropriated to some extent (and your land tax is just that - an expropriation), which means that you are not free, but bound (under threat of force) to some master. The fact that Switzerland’s inhabitants didn’t feel like slaves as much as, say, the real slaves of Egypt, doesn’t mean they weren’t.

~ Because the effect is the same - it is still a local government, but with another name slapped onto it.

Not at all, Sir. Homeowners’ associations are voluntary per definitionem. You don’t necessarily have to join the club. You might have to if the land you desire to purchase or rent is controlled by some mutual cooperative or a single greedy capitalist, but you’re just as free to homestead in the Rocky Mountains.

Whereas in your Georgist society, I’d have to report to the tax man in any case.

~Private agencies like they do here and abolish private ownership?

Oh really? Well, what do we collect a tax for, then?

Let me remind you: In fact, Henry George, stressed that this was NOT necessary: possessory rights under the status quo via title deeds need not be disturbed.

As soon as you have to pay a tax on your land under threat of force, you do not own private property anymore. You merely rent it from the government.

2. We also saw in a previous post how LVT defended property rights against the state (i.e. McClelland v R) where the Crown said the land was theirs, when, in fact, the fact the individual was paying LVT meant it was clearly his

That’s just outrageous. The fact that I’m forced to pay taxes (to the Crown?) in a slave-like fashion protects my right to land ownership against any claims by the Crown? How Orwellian can it get?

Homeownership, in America, is the largest in Pittsburgh, where they employ LVT. Thus, physically, increasing private property tenure. Again, this can only occur under a Georgist system.

Happiness is greatest in Denmark where everything is being taxed into oblivion. Thus, taxing into oblivion increases happiness.

In other words, post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

119

I’ll send you a copy of my book - nevertheless, you have given me a few interesting ideas - thanks for the discussion.

What I dislike are arguments where ones premises presuppose their conclusion. My only fear is that anarcho-capitalism - while I am sympathetic with some of its premises - will simply transform from covert supression to overt supression. We cannot debate this point. It is an empirical question that remains to be tested. Interestingly, though, on the land question, economics is on the Georgist side (i.e. land is inelastic and immobile, hence needs to be allocated efficiently, as we saw in Hong Kong and Pittsburgh).

In the meantime, I am going to try apply Georgist-like model within a stateless society (prima facie, it seems contradictory I know). Perhaps, via a free banking or a voluntary social contract based when ideas are debated between people - in that historical context- (without government) Mill’s unearned increment may be extracted e.g. via a citizens dividend (which, is administered by a private defence force, bank or social contract among consenting people) we can have the outcomes I desire - people, of course, can choose what to do with that dividend e.g. build roads by private companies or spend it.

All people deserve private property rights: land use and the property upon it, labour and capital etc. However, people who own property rights to labour and capital have a shared stake in rents by definition, which by their co-operation, they help create as a group of individuals (e.g. population growth, infrastructure etc). Hence my point, it violates a basic free market prinicple: the quid pro quo rule. True, the landlord takes active steps to create value for you, but only in anticipation of what you will do - In L (labour) and K (capital good) markets, participating individuals are engaged in the value creating process. But individuals as owners of land in the R (rent) market are anomalies. The rents they claim are a pure transfer of income. There is no exchange by the individual landowner – there is no quid pro quo, no exchange of like for like value. In other words, the price of “rent” is a “surplus”. Thus, I find it difficult, in the words of Hayek to see, how “each of us would be rewarded for all the benefits that we create; and we would accept personal responsibility for the cost of the damage we inflict on others”.

120

Uh, postivism (i.e. Wittgenstein etc) by definition cannot be non-sense - its the world out there i.e. reality. In short, scientific evidence (alas, the Austrians prefer logic - but I do think the real world does work the way Austrians describe).

Oh Jon Irenicus I sometimes wonder if you’re taking the piss lol.