Comments for This is my chaos

Comment on Rothbard v Georgism: Loose Ends by MK

MK — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 07:29:23 +0000

I would imagine (guess, but it seems fairly sure) that the ‘missing context’ re the 100% or 95% is that, in between the writing of the two parts, Georgists read the first and his pointing out what 100% tax would do and responded with, ‘Well, all right, perhaps we don’t need to take 100% then.’ The second part is his rebuttal of their rebuttals, isn’t it?

Comment on Caplan/Gochenour v Georgism: Part 5 – Reflections by fraggle

fraggle — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 16:14:53 +0000

Ah, I think I understand you now. I think a lot of this depends on how far down surface rights actually go (for me, not very far!). If what you’re after is actually deep underground, do you even need to disturb the surface activity directly above to get at it? Not really. You just need a site reasonably nearby in order to gain access. Separating the surface assessment from the extraction assessment seems perfectly sound to me, and I guess I’m not clear we’re even disagreeing.

Comment on Caplan/Gochenour v Georgism: Part 5 – Reflections by Kj

Kj — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 13:37:37 +0000

Let me correct that, you *can* tax the alternative value of land use, but I can’t see how it can be done ex ante.

Comment on Caplan/Gochenour v Georgism: Part 5 – Reflections by Kj

Kj — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 13:33:16 +0000

The practical issue is: you can’t tax the alternative value of land use, if it’s dependent on discovery and uncertainty. If a geologist comes around and tells me that a coal seem is under my land, am I suddenly liable for the full rental value of the estimated deposits? When does taxation occur? When I acknowledge it? Do we know the full extent of the reserves, and the cost of extracting it? We don’t. Minerals need to be treated differently. As the relatively most common taxed form of rent, minerals are always taxed upon extraction, either auctioned before, as royalties or through income taxes.

Comment on Caplan/Gochenour v Georgism: Part 5 – Reflections by fraggle

fraggle — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 12:54:15 +0000

No probs. It’s certainly enjoyable but takes waaaaaay too long to do very often.

Comment on Caplan/Gochenour v Georgism: Part 5 – Reflections by fraggle

fraggle — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 12:32:49 +0000

Hehe – don’t worry, as you can see, I’m not necessarily a speed replier myself!

I must admit your reply makes little sense to me. If our farmer friend “would theoretically be taxed on 100% of the rents generated by extraction of the coal under his property”, then why would he not *actually* be taxed that amount? To change the tax charge based on what limitations the occupier wants to unilaterally place on *himself* is to not have LVT.

Did you mean something else?

Comment on Caplan/Gochenour v Georgism: Part 5 – Reflections by Kj

Kj — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 20:31:48 +0000

Took some time to reply!
Yes, the owner of the property will theoretically choose between the activity that gives the highest return. But common sense says that we can’t tax what’s in the ground (but we can tax the right to extract/income from extracting it). So if our farmer friend would theoretically be taxed on 100% of the rents generated by extraction of the coal under his property, if it’s opened up, which is his decision as to when to do, there is no reason for him to give out extraction rights to anyone, and disturb his regular farming activity. This is all very theoretical, and in real life, ofcourse he would get a portion of those rents to incentivise him. So the rental value of the resource where there is a mutually exclusive choice between surface and extractive use, is then what is left after whatever return makes it profitable to extract, plus whatever is enough incentive for the surface owner to give up surface use (presumably more than the return on surface use).

Comment on Caplan/Gochenour v Georgism: Part 5 – Reflections by ka1m

ka1m — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:24:34 +0000

Thanks Fraggle. A thoroughly engaging and enjoyable read that has given me much to think about. I can only hope that you enjoyed the thinking and writing as much as I enjoyed the reading!

Comment on Caplan/Gochenour v Georgism – Part 1: The Distortion Field by ka1m

ka1m — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:00:48 +0000

Just getting back to your site after a long break (Happy New Year!) and saw that there’s plenty to read! Looking forward to going over your posts. Thanks again for devoting time to this–I appreciate it.

Comment on Caplan/Gochenour v Georgism: Part 5 – Reflections by fraggle

fraggle — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 00:05:44 +0000

Why does there need to be an immediate incentive? If the minerals are cheap (meaning demand is easily met), then is it really worth interrupting the surface activity?

It’s only when the price rises to the point where the rents obtainable during extraction are greater than that from the surface activity that an incentive is required, and surely the incentive then is that the land has become more valuable, thus the LVT will rise.