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."

 

Labels:

Popular Posts

A Dialogue on the UK's Accession to the United States (UKEXIT)

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.  Being English the main focus is for the country of England to accede. The original intent was to ask the government to lead on it through a petition leading to the question coming before the House of Commons. This was crushed out of hand by the committee leading petitions, which was not a surprise.  Simply put, this petition is asking the government to start a conversation about the benefits of leaving the UK and joining the United States. Let us call the initiative UKEXIT (yukezit) 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 Unit...
Read more

The 450 Volt Truth: From Orwell to Obedience

A Complete Thread on Dystopia, Milgram, and Breaking the Agentic State - Why People Act Irrationally and Often Violently When a Tribal Social Structure and Its Hierarchy Are Brought Under Serious Scrutiny This is a tricky topic. Please read the Obedience Glossary of Terms before proceeding Executive Summary This piece was written from a long conversation with Grok. I had to interrogate the AI quite a bit. And was astonished at how it produced such intelligence. I've included the most pertinent parts. Do not be fooled into thinking this is just another Orwell analysis. That is just setting the scene well. For what comes later on the agentic state and how power uses it to control the masses.  It may not have all the answers. It might wrong. A lot of it is very hard to believe is happening. But it still seems to fit the bizarre world of system wide dissonance we all live and partake in today, better than all the alternatives. So deserves your continued attention. By all means make yo...
Read more

Government & Tax Death Toll

I'm going to show you how government and taxation causes more excess death than any other factor, even global wars and pandemics. It is and always has been the biggest genocide of all. And its deliberate. Government doesn’t just fail to save lives — it takes them, at scale.  2–6 million globally 200K–400K in the U.S. 50K–80K in the UK Every year. Every tax. Every regulation. Cumulatively since 1970 government and tax killed between 160 and 300 million people across the globe  More than all 20th century wars and genocides combined (260M) In the U.S. ten times more than all U.S. combat deaths in history (10 * 1.2M) In the UK equivalent to 1 in 15 of all deaths And the nations with more regulations and a higher tax to GDP ratio such as the UK and US, tend to kill more of their own citizens per capita. The poorest nations have a better record than the richest. All this excess death is rooted in the institutions of taxation - the theft of private property, by force, against your fr...
Read more