Skip to main content

I was asked today if I thought that abolishing all taxation except for that on the value of land was a viable prospect...

"No. It is not at all a viable prospect. 

Exchanging a tax on earned incomes for a tax on land values has been shown historically to be the most failing economic policy of all policy. In spite of it being technically perfect.

This means The People themselves do not want it because we're inherently selfish and like gambling with our households and children's futures. 

So be it. We are stuck with the economic devastation of taxation of earned incomes. Particularly a tariff and sales taxes.

People on the whole prefer the enormous risk of taxing earned incomes, rather than an innovative shift to taxing un-earned incomes instead. The beauty of the latter is that the tax cannot harm a nations productivity. Because the tax falls on neither labour nor capital. But land value in the end. Or its lesser derivatives, in monopoly profits, aka 'economic rents'. 

A tax on these economic rents is not really a tax at all. The word tax is used nominally to define a de facto rent, because it sits easier in the public understanding. People being generally ignorant about looking after their own households struggle to think deeply about good answers that might solve so many problems very close to home.

A tax on earned incomes falls on 'earned incomes' - so destroys, at the root, a large part of that hard work skill and industry by implication. A payment of rent, falls directly on un-earned incomes - economic rents, so cannot harm hard work and free enterprise in any way whatsoever because they are not even involved in the exchange. They can proceed to trade with total freedom so long as the state can protect those rights to freedom.

A rent falls on benefits received which have been delivered by the rest of the nation, both the state and free enterprise combined. A tax is levied based on the state's ability to force the victim to pay it, notwithstanding if the victim got any benefits from it or not. 

What is astonishing about this proposition is that a shift to it would be an authentic innovation. Because the shift to a fundamentally more beneficial alternative would cost nothing at all - it would be free. All the state has to do is stop doing it. Just stop. OK maybe they would need to burn all pieces of paper talking about all taxation, most regulations, most of the law and all of welfare - send it all up in flames in a spectacular public display of celebration. Its the kind of innovation that Mr. Elon Musk can only dream of. 

The one delivers an sustainable economic virtual circle. The other a viscous cycle inevitably terminated by Great Recession.

The astonishment is that in spite of this innovation, the democratic majority in the great masse of people... does not want it evidently.

Alas, The People choose Great Recession every time, in a cycle that repeats about every 20 years or so, nothing precise. And we elect the leadership which are most likely to deliver that - those who are most 'skilful' in delivering that. Flip flopping between the false dichotomy of the so called left and the right nearly every cycle.

We can see the latest cycle playing out in that great nation of America today in 2025. America currently leads the world economically so all is sourced in America and all other nations catch a cold from them. The brilliant efficiencies they are delivering in government will increase the nations productivity no end - more will be produced, from less work and investment all else being equal, thanks to the efficiencies made in government. And this will increase the demand for the best locations to make all the extra profit on. Thus, all the gains from DOGE will end up in higher land values - rents!

And so it goes... while the Mother of all 'inefficiency' reigns supreme, all gains made from the redemption of all other lesser efficiencies such as DOGE, will be left for the robber that takes all that is left. There will have been no fundamental change, no innovation. Amen.

Philosophically my theory on this is that though a systemic pathology, it still must be the better alternative. That is to say, a shift to taxing rents would do more harm than no innovation. I have no idea why. All I can say is it explains the pathology better than all other explanations do. Maybe somehow nature or some higher power is blocking the innovation to 'protect' us from the worse alternative of innovation. There are many other theories about it, but this one feels closest to The Mark."

 

Popular Posts

PETITION: Government to indicate countries of the UK are open to accede to the US

Sign the Petition A Dialogue on the UK's Accession to the United States Executive Summary This initiative seeks to foster a formal dialogue regarding the potential accession of the countries of the United Kingdom , to the United States , as individual states.  Simply put, this petition is asking the government to start a conversation about the benefits of leaving the UK and joining the United States. The objective is to evaluate the benefits to citizens and stakeholders, encouraging a constructive discourse on the political, economic, and social implications of such a union. If Wales , Northern Ireland , Scotland , or  England were to leave the United Kingdom, it would end their system of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy . Instead, if they joined the United States as separate states, they would govern themselves under the U.S. federal system while receiving its protection. This proposal recognises that immediate change is unlikely but urges a serious con...
Read more

Who Said There Was Anything Wrong With a Worldview?

Who Said There Was Anything Wrong With a Worldview? I didn't. But it's when I believe my worldview, is truth, that I become violent without realising it. This is extremely hard for people to accept as possible. The resistance to seeing it and the temptation to escape from looking, is built into its foundations. So, I never said worldviews are bad for us. I did say that when I believe my worldview is a fact, then "I" become root cause of the worlds problems. Thought creates an image of the world. Then thought worships the image that thought created. I am scared of death. So I create an existential worldview about immortality - an image. This can be a God, a political ideology, scientific religiosity, atheism, planet saving activism, anything which my fear of death can hide behind. So if I do 'good' through this image I created, I will ultimately get a 'seat on the right hand side of God' , or whatever the image I created has defined as heaven. Then I w...
Read more

Facing Draco, Mining Dorado

This is a proposal to show how the 18.6 year real estate cycle is a hang over from times where the mechanics of the lunar month were used by high priests of the time to forecast ancient agricultural cycles - what we would today call a business cycle culminating in a financial crisis or a great recession. The 18.6 year period is governed by the intersection of lunar and solar eclipses. It is known scientifically as the Saros Cycle. Where all 3 harmonics of the orbit of the moon coincide once every 18.6 years. The ancient scholars knew this. And the politicians of the time used it to signal the day when the economy would be deliberately reset by fiat. This reset was necessary because this period was about how long the people of nations could abuse the economy before it was too late to recover on its own and much worse effects would have emerged. So it was the wisdom of the leadership of the time. As the aeons went by, the meaning and rationale of this policy became normalised - people an...
Read more