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."