New York Times: Perhaps a Land Value Tax?
|July 23, 2014||Posted by Staff under Good Press|
Corporate Taxation Is Inefficient
This 2014 excerpt of the New York Times, Jly 21, is by Tim Worstall, senior fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London and a contributor to Forbes.
Corporate taxation is hidden taxation: everyone thinks that someone else is paying it, not them, which is why politicians love it so much. It’s a grossly inefficient tax. Taxing economic activity means that we will have less economic activity: the economy will be smaller than it would be without tax.
Government should raise revenue at the least cost in reduced economic activity. The deadweight cost, that lost activity, is higher for capital and corporate taxation than it is for income taxation, higher than for consumption and all higher than property taxation.
Optimal taxation theory tells us that we should therefore eliminate capital and corporate taxation and move to a progressive consumption tax and perhaps a land value tax.
Ed. Notes: Brave of him to cite land as a tax base (once again). Of course he had to cover his butt and add “perhaps”. Which is the difference between mainstream media, constantly catering to fear, and alternative media, always trying to lay it on the line.
Bear in mind that “land” here refers to location, not just downtowns but also sites above oil fields and the oil itself. And not just tangible land but also the intangible, such as the EM spectrum (a frequency is a location there). And not just land, the good, but also ecosystem, the service. Finally, what the tax or fee or lease or dues falls on is not land, the stock, but its rent, the flow.
This flow of money that we spend for the nature we use need not fund government; government can get by charging fees for its services. Instead, all those rents for all those locations could be disbursed as dividends to citizens. Receiving a fair share, citizens could get by with much less government, making the whole taxation question much more tolerable.