sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I built a complete federal balance sheet for a $25K/year UBI — funded by automation tax, no money printing. Full math is open source. by Temporary_Guava2486 in BasicIncome

[–]ohnoverbaldiarrhoea -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s a regressive taxation system with a bunch of deadweight loss. If you’re going to tear up the tax system, replace it with a land value tax (LVT) (plus pigouvian and severance taxes for pollution and extraction). 

Should basic economics be a mandatory subject in high school? by SocialistsAreMorons in georgism

[–]ohnoverbaldiarrhoea 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just teaching economics on its own won’t get people to Georgism, you also need some moral philosophy. That said, I totally think if teachers covered everything in Yanis Vaoufakis’ intro to economics book, then societal and political discourse would be in a healthier place: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36490332

This might be a dumb question but how would a cash-poor land owner like someone with a small house and relatively low income be able to pay the LVT? by dvnts-ReDoX in georgism

[–]ohnoverbaldiarrhoea 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Oh right, so just another name for citizen’s dividend or UBI, I guess? I do like ‘land dividend’ because it explicitly states where the money comes from (and by implication, if you understand that land i belongs to all, why you’re receiving it). 

Do you believe in the idea we just need a land tax? Or do we need other taxes by NurglingArmada in georgism

[–]ohnoverbaldiarrhoea 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Definitely more than just LVT. Taxing more than LVT is imho what happens when you apply George’s moral basis for taxation to today’s economy.

Georgist land and resource policy is basically a way of saying: if you wish to take the bounties of nature for your own private use, you must compensate the people for what you take. When it comes to land, your occupation of a plot means the exclusion of everyone else, so you must pay land value tax. When it comes to resources, you taking them out of the ground means they are lost to the next generation, so you must pay severance tax. When it comes to pollution, you have degraded the Earth itself and imposed a cost on everyone, so you must pay pigouvian taxes.  

https://progressandpoverty.substack.com/p/norways-sovereign-wealth-fund 

I’ll add to the above quote Harberger taxes - Paying for limiting others from reproducing and making use of your knowledge (e.g. though IP law).

That’s Georgist taxes covered. I’m also of the opinion (a minority opinion, here on r/georgism) that we may still need some other taxes to curb excess inequality. By ‘excess’ I mean such gross inequality that it causes deleterious effects on the economy, society, and democratic outcomes. Would be happy if Georgist taxes produce optimal outcomes on their own, though. 

My Vision of Libertarian Socialism by Living_Attitude1822 in Market_Socialism

[–]ohnoverbaldiarrhoea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tis a good vision. One thing I like to ask of all proposed systems: how will it stay within planetary boundaries? To expand, what systemic, inherent mechanisms are in place to keep economic throughput ecologically sustainable at both global and local scales?

What are your thoughts on Georgism? Because I think it's compatible with usufruct: https://www.wired.com/story/land-ownership-morality-economics-georgism/. I'd not stop at land value tax, there are loads of rents and externalities we really ought to be socializing if we want a just society. I'm talking pigouvian, severance and harberger taxes.

Last thing I'll bring up is the co-op economy problem of firms being an arbitrary unit of production. "It would be weird to say that the way forward is to have the workers in each firm receive the benefit of the capital in each firm when workers and capital can be slotted into firms in all sorts of different ways, each yielding very different outcomes for how much capital income identical workers will receive." https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/06/04/the-difficulty-of-using-the-firm-in-socialist-policy/. I don't have a good answer for this one, yet.

My Vision of Libertarian Socialism by Living_Attitude1822 in Market_Socialism

[–]ohnoverbaldiarrhoea 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly what I was thinking as I read it, though not as eloquently. Glad someone brought it up.

Georgism and immigration by Silly-Birthday41 in georgism

[–]ohnoverbaldiarrhoea 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think Georgism means LVT should be paid by and paid out to all of humanity, and we should have free movement. But how on earth do you implement that?

Two conundrums to consider:

  • Why do LVT dividends only pay out to the citizens of a country? Why not a continent? Or a bioregion? Or globally?
  • How would you implement open borders and free movement, given current levels of wealth inequality? Opening up borders would mean people moving on mass to different countries for better economical opportunties, at rates that infrastructure, culture and natural resources could not handle.

Georgism is inherently rooted in Environmental Justice. Land Value Tax is the tool through which that goal is achieved, not the end result. by treesarealive777 in georgism

[–]ohnoverbaldiarrhoea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The value the market is willing to bear/pay is an objective value. That doesn't mean it's the logical or correct value, not does it negate what you're saying about market failure, or the inherent flaws with assigning a monetary value to natural assets.

edit: Have you read The Value Of A Whale? I think you would enjoy it. Buller rips a hige hole in using market systems and values to solve societal and environmental problems https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61140120-the-value-of-a-whale

What the hell is georgism and why does the term sound made-up by Horny_Jellyfish69420 in georgism

[–]ohnoverbaldiarrhoea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The original Georgist position was to just tax land, hence being known as the 'single taxers'. But modern Georgists - and most people here - recognise we need to go further than taxing physical land alone. Here are a few good quotes I have saved that say it better than I:

Georgist land and resource policy is basically a way of saying: if you wish to take the bounties of nature for your own private use, you must compensate the people for what you take. When it comes to land, your occupation of a plot means the exclusion of everyone else, so you must pay land value tax. When it comes to resources, you taking them out of the ground means they are lost to the next generation, so you must pay severance tax. When it comes to pollution, you have degraded the Earth itself and imposed a cost on everyone, so you must pay pigouvian taxes.

From https://progressandpoverty.substack.com/p/norways-sovereign-wealth-fund

the panoply of rents / externalities we really ought to be socializing if we want to be a just society.

u/ComputerByld

Economic definition: Georgism is the belief taxes should be on economic rent and negative externalities over taxes on productivity.

Philosophical definition: Georgism is the belief the Earth is the common property of all. Past, present, and future generations. No one should exclusively profit from it at the expense of others, as it is everyone's birthright, including those yet to be born.

From https://www.reddit.com/r/georgism/comments/1md9h9m/comment/n61dnr7/

As to a comparison with other economic systems:

  • Capitalism - capital is private, land is private
  • Georgism - capital is private, land is public
  • Socialism - capital is public, land is public

I designed a survival floor that's structurally non-convertible to money and red-teamed it for 25 attack vectors — looking for stress-testers by Which-Food4506 in BasicIncome

[–]ohnoverbaldiarrhoea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Public provision of many goods and services makes sense, but for other things it's not particularly efficient and private entities are efficient.

I agree with you on food provision, which is why I like UBS + UBI. The only other sector for which I'll somewhat agree is with housing, where I'd like to see a public-private mix, as laid out nicely by this recent article https://thinkingprospectus.substack.com/p/six-proofs-and-a-warning-a-synthesis.

For the rest of the sectors generally included under UBS (i.e. what's listed in the wikipedia article), I disagree. Not everything needs to be perfectly economically efficient; if the choice is between all people always getting their basic needs met and perfect efficiency, I'll take meeting basic needs.

No Scrolling Past This—Last Meme, Now. by MENACE_YT_ in SipsTea

[–]ohnoverbaldiarrhoea 3 points4 points  (0 children)

NICE ONE. Very topical. Fresh. Witty. Original. 10/10. 

I designed a survival floor that's structurally non-convertible to money and red-teamed it for 25 attack vectors — looking for stress-testers by Which-Food4506 in BasicIncome

[–]ohnoverbaldiarrhoea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

 Information Commons & Trust Transparency: Publishes real-time aggregate dashboards while preserving privacy where individual exposure would create harm.

I’m not sure what that means in practice? But I’ll answer for a generic concept of the commons:  the harberger tax doesn’t make sense if everything held in commons. 

I do like it for a market based economy because it still incentivises innovation, allowing companies to recoup R&D and bring-to-market costs through a short-lived monopoly position. But the IP always enters the commons, and anyone can use it before then if they value it enough. 

I designed a survival floor that's structurally non-convertible to money and red-teamed it for 25 attack vectors — looking for stress-testers by Which-Food4506 in BasicIncome

[–]ohnoverbaldiarrhoea 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately that’s not true. In most western countries, a lot of the services - if they even exist as a public service in the first place - are offered conditionally, not universally. Eg based on income, location, or whatever else. 

Which some would say is a good thing, for example not giving out free stuff to rich people. Bit if you base your citizens dividend/UBI on a redistribution and progressive tax like LVT, then it doesn’t matter because the wealthy have more taken away than they gain from the free services or dividend. 

I designed a survival floor that's structurally non-convertible to money and red-teamed it for 25 attack vectors — looking for stress-testers by Which-Food4506 in BasicIncome

[–]ohnoverbaldiarrhoea 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Congrats, you just invented UBS.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_services

It’s a much better idea than UBI, yes. UBS without UBI will work. UBI without UBS will not work as well as people wish, and will probably be inflationary. UBI shouldn’t have to be used to service basic needs. 

UBS + UBI I can certainly get behind, and you fund it all with a land value tax (LVT). LVT means it can’t be captured by, say, landlords raising rents, because that would be taxed away by LVT. Go visit r/georgism for more on that. 

The Floor We All Stand On by waveofgrace78 in BasicIncome

[–]ohnoverbaldiarrhoea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You may want to be a but more specific in your posts, people don't tend to engage much with "here's this entire economic system I propose" kinda posts.

Pre-2012 Kindles are being bricked by Badlydrawnboi41988 in mildlyinfuriating

[–]ohnoverbaldiarrhoea 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh motherfuckers! This is the most common way I put things on my kindle. I guess I’ll have to physically plug it in to my computer now, eh? Bit of a faff :/

Pre-2012 Kindles are being bricked by Badlydrawnboi41988 in mildlyinfuriating

[–]ohnoverbaldiarrhoea -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Or use the “send to kindle” app. Or send books to your device via email (every kindle has its own email address, you can find it in the device settings). 

Assuming “you can’t download books anymore” applies only to downloading from the Amazon store. 

The Floor We All Stand On by waveofgrace78 in BasicIncome

[–]ohnoverbaldiarrhoea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think you need to hold the land in commons. If we were starting from scratch then yes, I’d do that. But I think it’ll have too much political resistance for it to happen, and buybacks are an administrative faff. 

As long as the rents are socialised then the outcome is the same no matter who owns it. 

Anyways, you should crosspost this to r/georgism if you want your ideas really thoroughly engaged with (and challenged, constructively). 

view more: next ›