Michael Hudson on Land, Banking and Socialism

Michael Hudson on Land, Banking and Socialism

Author
Discussion

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 23rd October 2017
quotequote all
Because scarcity, competition, acquisitiveness, and so on. I don't think that being a bunch of meanies is necessarily hard wired into humanity, but whilst we have scarcity (even relative scarcity, despite absolute abundance) we may carry on being mean to one another. Communal life is good for a village, as recently contacted Amazonian people show us, but it is is hard to pull off on a scale of billions.

Also we like stuff. Modern shiny stuff. That stuff needs lot of concentrated resources and effort to make and distribute. I am not saying that we need stuff, but we have got used to having it, and most people want more stuff.

drainbrain

5,637 posts

110 months

Monday 23rd October 2017
quotequote all
There's some of your answers then. In order to develop a happier and fairer society we have to behave a bit differently and think of what we aspire to a bit differently. Change the nature of competivity. Place less value or no value on individual acquisition. Redefine what constitutes kudos and reward. Blah blah blah.

Make the changes that make communality much easier to scale up. They aren't changes to the taxation of property they are changes to how we think of each other and what we want to achieve as a community. They are also changes which have to start with the individual. People themselves have to want to live in a less selfish and greedy and stressful culture. But unfortunately the people who want to even think about it are mostly its victims. However as increasing numbers become victims rather than 'winners' (as is currently the case) more begin to think about it.


loafer123

15,404 posts

214 months

Monday 23rd October 2017
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Communal life is good for a village, as recently contacted Amazonian people show us, but it is is hard to pull off on a scale of billions.
Actually, the Garden Village initiative which is producing substantial applications for new settlements is completely based upon this balanced community approach.

I am involved in several (for the avoidance of doubt, I consider the major house builders the devil incarnate) and the model is an evolution of Poundbury where there are 1,750 houses and over 2,200 jobs, together with every type of housing and people.

For “my” villages I base my approach on my own village where there is an amazing range of services and everything from tiny council flats to huge mansions, and everyone gets along.

W124

1,495 posts

137 months

Monday 23rd October 2017
quotequote all
Well done all for keeping this on track. We might get a sensible thread, just once. you never know...

The trouble is the extremes. That's really the problem. Taxing income just taxes productivity. Taxing assets/land forces people to be productive with those assets or sell them on to somebody who can be. But it's not me, with the bits and bobs of things I own, that is really the issue. It's more that the same people who owned most of this country after the Norman invasion still own most of it. And they, alas, also have a great deal of power and influence. Taxing their income is pointless and difficult. Their assets, which they personally have done nothing to acquire, are hidden behind trust legislation. LVT lashes those people, and hard, hence it's just a rather nice dream.

Of course I'm aware that me, with my bits and bobs of things, is going to be an easier target than a Norman Baron. Then of course, you have to bring income tax down as you start to bring in LVT. I don't trust ANY gouvernment not to make hay there.

Lord knows, this is tricky.

loafer123

15,404 posts

214 months

Monday 23rd October 2017
quotequote all

The problem with taxing wealth is that it is patently unfair.

If I choose to not spend my earnings and instead invest them in, say, shares, which generate wealth and then pass those shares to my children, why should they be taxed on anything other than the dividends they produce?

turbobloke

103,736 posts

259 months

Monday 23rd October 2017
quotequote all
W124 said:
Well done all for keeping this on track. We might get a sensible thread, just once. you never know...
Fingers crossed, it's touch and go.

edh said:
Woah...hyperbolic or what?
On the basis of the alternative you offer, the answer is 'what'.

You can easily find, if you wish to look, all that I cited/attributed when describing Corbyn-McDonnell marxism.

None of it was fabricated, making your response - with respect - underwhelming.



Edited by turbobloke on Monday 23 October 19:46

W124

1,495 posts

137 months

Monday 23rd October 2017
quotequote all
Yes, I take your point. It's very difficult. I dislike being taxed myself. But I think I'd rather be taxed on my assets than my income as what I earn is more broadly related to my own personal ability. I.E. the harder I work, the more tax I pay. This does not encourage me to be productive.

Also, it depends what you mean by unfair. I intend to leave my kids some property and a working business. That's nice for them but it's hardly conducive to a meritocratic society. If you look at it the other way round, there is absolutely no 'fairness' at all.

A healthy capitalism surely requires a greater deal of equality of opportunity than we a re currently able to produce.

Or does it? I find this one quite hard to come to a solid position on. I hope we can continue to discuss it in a rational way and avoid the shouting.

drainbrain

5,637 posts

110 months

Monday 23rd October 2017
quotequote all
loafer123 said:
The problem with taxing wealth is that it is patently unfair.

If I choose to not spend my earnings and instead invest them in, say, shares, which generate wealth and then pass those shares to my children, why should they be taxed on anything other than the dividends they produce?
Other than they are disabled and require third party assistance, what moral right do people have to try to use funds they have accumulated well in excess of their needs to create dynastic wealth for their children when they are well aware that many of their fellow human beings have no food or water and can only obtain it if they enable them by funding it instead of their children's future excesses ?

turbobloke

103,736 posts

259 months

Monday 23rd October 2017
quotequote all
edh said:
The next trick is to get the slightly better off blaming those poorer than themselves as the reason they have to pay such high taxes.
According to reports, it's happening already in Italy to a degree. The regional governments of Lombardy and Veneto, rather than 'Doing a Catalonia', are demanding the right to keep more of their citizens' tax monies which they say the central government wastes on the (poorer) south.

loafer123

15,404 posts

214 months

Monday 23rd October 2017
quotequote all
drainbrain said:
loafer123 said:
The problem with taxing wealth is that it is patently unfair.

If I choose to not spend my earnings and instead invest them in, say, shares, which generate wealth and then pass those shares to my children, why should they be taxed on anything other than the dividends they produce?
Other than they are disabled and require third party assistance, what moral right do people have to try to use funds they have accumulated well in excess of their needs to create dynastic wealth for their children when they are well aware that many of their fellow human beings have no food or water and can only obtain it if they enable them by funding it instead of their children's future excesses ?
Surely, then, you are only a half step from confiscating wealth you make yourself?

If you don’t have the right to give your children something, why do you have the right to have it yourself...?

W124

1,495 posts

137 months

Monday 23rd October 2017
quotequote all
Isn't it just a question of degree though? It doesn't have to be all or nothing. A modest tax on assets, a modest LVT, not some swinging leap into class war.

drainbrain

5,637 posts

110 months

Monday 23rd October 2017
quotequote all
loafer123 said:
Surely, then, you are only a half step from confiscating wealth you make yourself?

If you don’t have the right to give your children something, why do you have the right to have it yourself...?
There was a mega rich Scots bloke called Carnegie who attained wisdom and proclaimed that 'the man who dies wealthy dies in disgrace'. Your 'right' couldn't be expressed more simply or succinctly.

But, morally speaking, why should one want to enrich one's children and indulge their wants rather than attend to one's fellow humans' needs?



Edited by drainbrain on Monday 23 October 20:47

sidicks

25,218 posts

220 months

Monday 23rd October 2017
quotequote all
drainbrain said:
Other than they are disabled and require third party assistance, what moral right do people have to try to use funds they have accumulated well in excess of their needs to create dynastic wealth for their children when they are well aware that many of their fellow human beings have no food or water and can only obtain it if they enable them by funding it instead of their children's future excesses ?
For the avoidance of doubt, this is not intended as a personal 'attack' on you, but where do you draw the line?

You've been open about your successful business / property 'empire' and have seemingly acquired / owned lots of assets - cars, watches etc.

Why should someone not be able to save and spend their hard earned heath on their families, rather than on material possessions?


loafer123

15,404 posts

214 months

Monday 23rd October 2017
quotequote all
drainbrain said:
There was a mega rich Scots bloke called Carnegie who attained wisdom and proclaimed that 'the man who dies wealthy dies in disgrace'. Your 'right' couldn't be expressed more simply or succinctly.

But, morally speaking, why should one want to enrich one's children and indulge their wants rather than attend to one's fellow humans' needs?



Edited by drainbrain on Monday 23 October 20:47
The flippant answer is because we are animals.

The more important point is my previous question...why stop at your children? And even if you do, surely people will just spend their wealth, rather than give it away through tax on their death?

Basically, I think your principle sounds lovely in theory, but wouldn’t work in real life.

W124

1,495 posts

137 months

Monday 23rd October 2017
quotequote all
That's the idea. That the assets are spent. The money is used. Anyways - the principle is not that things cannot be left. The principle is that doing so, in the form we currently choose, is bad for society as a whole. It makes true equality of opportunity (not outcome) absolutely impossible.

To be honest, I'm kind of in two minds about it.

I make most of my money from royalties. On music. There was a recent manifesto pledge by the Greens to drastically limit the length of copyright. For similar reasons. Got me thinking - after my initial outrage I realised that my skin in the game was causing me to see it from a skewed perspective. I still think the degree of change they proposed was the problem. The numbers were wrong, the rate of change to strong. The actual aim was laudable.

I would be hit by LVT. That does not mean I can't see the sense in it.

loafer123

15,404 posts

214 months

Monday 23rd October 2017
quotequote all
W124 said:
That's the idea. That the assets are spent. The money is used. Anyways - the principle is not that things cannot be left. The principle is that doing so, in the form we currently choose, is bad for society as a whole. It makes true equality of opportunity (not outcome) absolutely impossible.
Could you explain a little more about the “form” element?

Do you see this problem as purely land or is it all hard assets, or everything?

W124

1,495 posts

137 months

Monday 23rd October 2017
quotequote all
It might be worth reading the article. I'm a bit drunk - actually I'm very drunk.

turbobloke

103,736 posts

259 months

Monday 23rd October 2017
quotequote all
W124 said:


I would be hit by LVT. That does not mean I can't see the sense in it.
As I'm sure you realise there is some nonsense in it also!

Firstly there's the question of how to disentangle the intrinsic value of land from what we see and semi-automatically associate with it: the transaction values when people buy/sell property on land.

At the point of introduction, a person landed with a LVT bill may have made no contribution to the value of their land (or the property on it) and depending on the point in time, may have owned it for mere weeks or months and therefore not been in ownership when its value increased markedly; the value will then go up or down largely outside their control. They will have already paid SDLT.

If levied locally there are bound to be vested interest-type concerns surrounding planning permission decisions, not least given the first point I raised above.

As a result of all of these points, a significant degree of arbitrariness is likely.

Edited by turbobloke on Monday 23 October 21:32

loafer123

15,404 posts

214 months

Monday 23rd October 2017
quotequote all
W124 said:
It might be worth reading the article. I'm a bit drunk - actually I'm very drunk.
Ha! As we all know, drink delivers extremes of quality of thought.

Brilliant or really crap!

edh

Original Poster:

3,498 posts

268 months

Monday 23rd October 2017
quotequote all
W124 said:
That's the idea. That the assets are spent. The money is used. Anyways - the principle is not that things cannot be left. The principle is that doing so, in the form we currently choose, is bad for society as a whole. It makes true equality of opportunity (not outcome) absolutely impossible.

To be honest, I'm kind of in two minds about it.

I make most of my money from royalties. On music. There was a recent manifesto pledge by the Greens to drastically limit the length of copyright. For similar reasons. Got me thinking - after my initial outrage I realised that my skin in the game was causing me to see it from a skewed perspective. I still think the degree of change they proposed was the problem. The numbers were wrong, the rate of change to strong. The actual aim was laudable.

I would be hit by LVT. That does not mean I can't see the sense in it.
Of course IP is another significant area of rent seeking activity... patent trolls being the worst I guess. Limited IP protection is necessary I'm sure.