🚀 go-pugleaf

royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<4166fb9c.13892742@news.telus.net>...
> On 7 Oct 2004 17:13:33 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
> Bonsignore) wrote:
>  
> >But I don`t think a particular tax structure would solve
> >underdevelopent.
> 
> Certainly it is not a sufficient condition, all by itself.  If a
> country is torn by civil war, or saddled with a massively corrupt
> government, or overwhelmed by pandemic malaria, AIDS, etc., land rent
> recovery alone will not turn it into a tiger economy.  But most
> underdeveloped countries in Latin America do not have those problems
> (though corruption is pretty bad in some of them).  
> 
> >Even if taxation were able to absorb Ricardian rent, we would then
> >have the problem to distribute that G income.
> 
> There is no shortage of worthwhile things to spend the money on, from
> crime prevention to primary education to transportation infrastructure
> to control of infectious diseases and pests.
> 
> >The budget is subject to
> >a political process and there are no guarantees that the assignment
> >will be spent in such a way that it will promote development, even if
> >it is totally absorbed by public works (infrastructure) or bureaucracy
> >(labor), which most certainly won`t be the case. It is not a pure
> >market solution. There is no easy way to solve underdevelopment.
> 
> Usually, there is: leave people free to produce, and let them keep the
> added value their productive efforts yield.  But that means minimizing
> what is given to those who contribute nothing, like landowners.
> 
> >I proposed a policy to handle land ownership with the purpose of
> >evening out wealth distribution, on the assumption that for families
> >owning a place to live is better than renting.
> 
> The problem is, your solution does not socialize land rent.  It
> socializes improvements.  It punishes and robs those who have
> contributed to the wealth of the community by constructing
> improvements where others live, while leaving the vast non-residential
> landholdings of the idle rich untouched.  It is a Band-Aid solution
> that would undoubtedly make the problem worse in the long run, not
> least by providing a convenient example of "failed land reform."
> 
Except that most rented housing had been depreciated and is own by
financially stable, rich people who didn`t pay the construction but
only bought the property to have an easy income, while paying very
small land taxes. Tell the last to the families that suddenly would
have life stability plus additional disposable income to cover those
expenses they have been avoiding for lack of sufficient income. Simply
better leisure time quality makes a difference. And old owners receive
a compensation, in some cases lump sums, in other an income stream.
The band aid makes a big difference.