tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331071225961603592.post3786176370478950385..comments2023-11-02T00:38:16.998-07:00Comments on FORTRESS FREEDOM: Tax SimplificationUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331071225961603592.post-34770709611888622492007-11-03T08:04:00.000-07:002007-11-03T08:04:00.000-07:00I don't know why this has only crept into my RSS r...I don't know why this has only crept into my RSS reader today, but very interesting.<BR/><BR/>Why would you want to have *any* income tax at all? Especially on lower incomes. Income taxes are a disincentive to work and to the creation of employment (and not just as is commonly said for higher earners who might go elsewhere). They are a tarriff on economic productivity.<BR/><BR/>The "smart" way to tax, as <A HREF="http://www.1909.org.uk/churchills_tax_switch" REL="nofollow">Churchil and Lloyd-George</A> advocated in 1909 is to ask not just "how much have you got" but "how did you get it" and tax, as much as possible, that gained through processes that are econommically less benign - like the appreciation in land values.<BR/><BR/>So, I probably would keep a small amount of income tax, on very high earners, on the basis that many of those high incomes will have been (though admitedly not necessarily) partly down to such things as land appreciation or patent monopoly or state protectionism in the past, and use that perhaps to top up specific services for those who for some reason could not survive at all on the Citizen's Income (say people with uninsurable medical needs), but otherwise only tax land values (all land values - including airspace and electromagnetic spectrum and so on).<BR/><BR/>There's enough in the (residential) national land values to pay out £100 per week to adults falling to £20 per week to 0-2 year olds if it were taxed properly, with perhaps commercial land values going to local authorities.Jock Coatshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15550558005508328017noreply@blogger.com