This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I disagree.
Here are some actual arguments against a LVT:
A LVT will force people to sell their homes, because people are cash-constrained
A LVT will force people to sell who have lived somewhere for decades, and the anxiety this creates among everyone (whether or not they are forced to sell) is a huge cost that outweighs the benefits
Arguments like "LVT is equivalent to the state seizing all land, and renting it back at market rates; it's expropriation on a massive scale" are just examples of the worst argument in the world. They're not careful analysis of values or cause-and-effect. They are simply trying to get you to associate the connotations of one idea (the government seizing property) with another (the government taxing property) with no critical analysis of the connection.
For instance, it is plainly obvious that a sales tax on cigarettes is dramatically different than a state seizing all cigarettes. Like, do I even need to state the differences? It is equally obvious that a LVT on a house is different than the government seizing the house - we already impose LVT on houses, we just bundle them with an additional tax on improvements and call it a "property tax".
Argument by analogy is, imo, usually a bad and lazy way to think and write. At best its value is as a brain-storming idea generator; definitely not as a finished thought. Alas, it is also one of the most common ways to "argue" on this very forum.
No. The 100% tax on imputed land rents that Henry George advocated is equivalent to the state seizing all land and renting it back at market rates. It is not similar in some contorted way, it is not an analogy; it is economically the same thing.
Really, this is just another way the quoted post is terrible.
A LVT is not equivalent to the 100% tax advocated for by George. Equivocating between the two is yet another shortcoming of the critique.
My guess is the majority of people who self-define as Georgists favour a land tax close to 100% (80% of the rent attributable to land and normal income tax rates on the part of the rent attributable to improvements is what I would favour in dath ilan, but in the real world I am not a full-on Georgist and favour incremental moves towards higher land taxes and lower other taxes).
If you accept the basic libertarian arguments that unavoidable taxes are confiscatory, and that non-sovereigns can "own" land the same way they own chattels, then full-on Georgism is indeed a confiscation of land (but not improvements), and a Georgist-inspired shift towards higher land taxes and lower income taxes is a partial confiscation of land. In fact, of course, you only ever "owned" the land at the pleasure of the State* and Georgism is a change in the terms under which the State allows you to continue "owning" it. Land taxes no more violate the property rights of landowners than Uber violates the property rights of taxi medallion owners.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link