Seeing like a state, progress and poverty, and owning land

Re:Seeing like a state, progress and poverty, and owning land by ItsMonkk on Sunday August 21, 2022 @01:30PM (#32542377)

I'm pretty sure you can have both if the tax bubbles up. You pay the local tax. That tax money then goes and pays the city tax. The city tax pays the state tax, the state tax pays the country tax, the country tax pays the global tax.

You are responsible for the improvements on your land, and you pay for the unimproved value of that land that comes from all higher levels. The local government on the other hand is responsible for local infrastructure, and pay for the city+ based unimproved value.

A landlocked country would pay less tax, a city at the mouth of a river pays higher tax, a locality with a beach pays higher tax, etc... this ensures that each level has some accountability and is incentivized to improve.

At each level is money left over after paying the tax(I hope!), and can either be invested or can be returned as a dividend.

One of the main unresolved issues with Georgism is the Disney World problem, and I believe that if you structure the tax in this way that problem goes away. Disney would simply be labeled not as a household actor, but as a city level actor.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Seeing like a state, progress and poverty, and owning land by TimPC on Friday August 26, 2022 @09:06AM (#32606949)

Paying CDs at multiple levels of government means that not everyone has an equal share of all land and resources. If I live in a poor part of the US I am entitled to far less in land and resources from my CDs. Many Georgists view this as neofeudal.

[ Parent | on HN ]