[Metrobeans]

M78 - Tax Motion, TSR Libertarian Party

Tax Motion

This House broadly agrees that we should seek to socialise that which should be common (unimproved land) and privatise that which should be private (wages, profits etc.). This House also agrees that whilst seeking to socialise land, we must recognise the huge practical benefits that come from private ownership of land. This House thus seeks to reconcile these two by increasing the rate of the land value tax.

Furthermore, this House broadly believes that we should be taxing 'bads' (eg. pollution) and reducing taxes on 'goods' (eg. labour), and therefore this House supports the principle of Pigovian taxation.

Notes

Just a little bit of justification for why wages and profits etc. should be private, and land should be socialised - since I didn't think it appropriate to go into the motion.

So unimproved land was created by no man, and is the product of no man's time or effort. Why can one man lay claim to any piece of land ahead of another? Each has equal (i.e. zero) claim to it.

As for privatising the rest - these all stem from people trading their time and voluntary giving - two activities where I don't see that the government can claim to appropriate any of the property. They may trade their time to build a machine, and use this machine to build other things and sell them. They may receive a gift and use this to buy a machine and thus sell things. They may trade their time for a wage, and thus earn a wage. With this they may invest in something, which may go up in value. This is private property either earned through trading your own time, or given to you by someone who traded their time and wished for you to have it. Since we all own ourselves, and all own our time - we should all keep the products of this to use as we see fit.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

I do wish Libertarian bills/motions were written with those of us who don't have economics degrees in mind!

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
I do wish Libertarian bills/motions were written with those of us who don't have economics degrees in mind!

Apologies, my mistake, I meant to have that as a link: Pigovian taxation.

I don't think much of the rest is economics-y particularly, though I'm happy to word things better. It more talks about two principles of taxation: that we should tax land, not labour and capital; and that we should tax those things which are bad, rather than those are good - since it both makes those doing the 'bad' have the cost they impose on everyone else in the price, and thus their decision making (and therefore leading to the socially optimal level of these 'bads') and because if you tax something, you get less of it. We'd rather reduce 'bads' than 'goods'.

These are the things the motion is putting forward, and I would equally hate for it to become too bogged down in economics.

(Original post by Metrobeans)
x

Oversight on my part, but would it be possible to add that link to the words 'Pigovian taxation' on the motion?

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Apologies, my mistake, I meant to have that as a link: Pigovian taxation.

I don't think much of the rest is economics-y particularly, though I'm happy to word things better. It more talks about two principles of taxation: that we should tax land, not labour and capital; and that we should tax those things which are bad, rather than those are good - since it both makes those doing the 'bad' have the cost they impose on everyone else in the price, and thus their decision making (and therefore leading to the socially optimal level of these 'bads') and because if you tax something, you get less of it. We'd rather reduce 'bads' than 'goods'.

These are the things the motion is putting forward, and I would equally hate for it to become too bogged down in economics.

I looked it up like a good historian doing research but was still flumoxed even with the explanation on wikipedia - "A Pigovian tax equal to the negative externality is thought to correct the market outcome back to efficiency." That is kind of meaningless to anyone who isn't trained a little in economics - someone such as myself. Granted lots of folk here have done economics A Level but there are some who haven't. So you want to tax hamburgers and waste land rather than tax my wages and a stick of celery? But who decides what's good and what's bad for tax purposes?

Perhaps I'm just not very clever.

[Metrobeans]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Apologies, my mistake, I meant to have that as a link: Pigovian taxation.

I don't think much of the rest is economics-y particularly, though I'm happy to word things better. It more talks about two principles of taxation: that we should tax land, not labour and capital; and that we should tax those things which are bad, rather than those are good - since it both makes those doing the 'bad' have the cost they impose on everyone else in the price, and thus their decision making (and therefore leading to the socially optimal level of these 'bads') and because if you tax something, you get less of it. We'd rather reduce 'bads' than 'goods'.

These are the things the motion is putting forward, and I would equally hate for it to become too bogged down in economics.


Oversight on my part, but would it be possible to add that link to the words 'Pigovian taxation' on the motion?

Amended.

[Rakas21]

I doubt many people will have an issue with the taxing land rather than income however i am unsure as to why you want us to condone your approach to taxation.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
I looked it up like a good historian doing research but was still flumoxed even with the explanation on wikipedia - "A Pigovian tax equal to the negative externality is thought to correct the market outcome back to efficiency." That is kind of meaningless to anyone who isn't trained a little in economics - someone such as myself. Granted lots of folk here have done economics A Level but there are some who haven't. So you want to tax hamburgers and waste land rather than tax my wages and a stick of celery? But who decides what's good and what's bad for tax purposes?

Sorry, I get so lost doing my degree I forget that these are economics terms.

The negative externality is the cost imposed on a third party involved with neither process through either the production or consumption of that good or service.

So, to take smoking, for example. Since we have socialised healthcare (NHS) - it means that those who smoke and thus get x/y disease and are treated at the cost of everyone else have imposed a cost on everyone else. That cost on everyone else is the negative externality. Pigovian taxation says that if you put a tax at the value of 'that cost to everyone else' (i.e. negative externality) then you reach the socially optimal level of that good, precisely because those doing the 'bad' have the cost they impose on everyone else in the price.

So who decides what's a 'bad' and what's a 'good'. Well, a bad is something with these negative externalities (pollution, to name but one), and a 'good' is pretty much anything else. If it harms no-one else, it's none of our business. It's, I guess, up to Parliament to decide - and that's where some interesting debates could be had - but as before, it's more to debate the principles set out here.

Edit (to your edit): don't be so hard on yourself.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by Rakas21)
I doubt many people will have an issue with the taxing land rather than income however i am unsure as to why you want us to condone your approach to taxation.

We thought it was an interesting debate. Since all tax changes here come in the form of Bills previously it's all been very technical. A broader debate on the principles of it, well, we thought it might be an interesting discussion.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Sorry, I get so lost doing my degree I forget that these are economics terms.

Don't we all!

The negative externality is the cost imposed on a third party involved with neither process through either the production or consumption of that good or service.

So, to take smoking, for example. Since we have socialised healthcare (NHS) - it means that those who smoke and thus get x/y disease and are treated at the cost of everyone else have imposed a cost on everyone else. That cost on everyone else is the negative externality. Pigovian taxation says that if you put a tax at the value of 'that cost to everyone else' (i.e. negative externality) then you reach the socially optimal level of that good, precisely because those doing the 'bad' have the cost they impose on everyone else in the price.

I see. Although, of course, socialised healthcare these days only exists in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The English government seem to have abolished it! Also, I see you're still on your Lloyd George mission to nationalise land!

So who decides what's a 'bad' and what's a 'good'. Well, a bad is something with these negative externalities (pollution, to name but one), and a 'good' is pretty much anything else. If it harms no-one else, it's none of our business. It's, I guess, up to Parliament to decide - and that's where some interesting debates could be had - but as before, it's more to debate the principles set out here.

I see. Well the question of what's good and bad in these circumstances tends to drag in a good number of other questions and is almost certainly inflected by class, background, and so forth. People might say that foods that are high in fat and tend to high circumstances of heart disease are bad but then for most working-class families that is what is traditional in their diet and often the cheapest food to buy. Easy not to tax middle-class vegetables butnot so easy to deal with the circumstances of others. Sounds interesting though.

Edit (to your edit): don't be so hard on yourself.

I haven't done maths since GCSE and barely scraped an A in it. Despite being able to talk at quite a high level about music, language, history, and a great many other things, my lack of ability in maths has always been a sore/ weak point for me. It doesn't help that everyone else in my family, even my sister who isn't very good at many things, can do maths at the drop of a hat. It just makes me wonder if it isn't all a sham, that the sign of true intelligence is one's mathematical ability rather than appreciation of the human condition.

[Rakas21]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
We thought it was an interesting debate. Since all tax changes here come in the form of Bills previously it's all been very technical. A broader debate on the principles of it, well, we thought it might be an interesting discussion.

Fair enough, i was already a broad proponent of Pigovian Taxation however i was just questioning your reasoning.

Aye.

I would however add that i do not want some negative externalities to reach equilibrium, narcotics for instance (including tobbaco) i wish to tax out of existence in the metaphorical sense (though this is not a government policy).

[D.R.E]

Yes, yes, YES!

[cl_steele]

apologies for the ignorance but this all just looks like chinese to me can someone put this in laymens terms for me please

[Rakas21]

(Original post by cl_steele)
apologies for the ignorance but this all just looks like chinese to me can someone put this in laymens terms for me please

Two aspects..

1) Do you support taxing land over income? If so, you should support the first point

2) Do you agree with Pigovian Taxation (give the Wiki a read)?

[JPKC]

If it were a matter of degree then of course it's preferable to tax 'bad things' rather than 'good things', what really matters is whether this ideal situation is allowed for by the circumstances of where wealth is concentrated. I'll vote aye so as to encourage the humane Geonomists in the Libers.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by JPKC)
If it were a matter of degree then of course it's preferable to tax 'bad things' rather than 'good things', what really matters is whether this ideal situation is allowed for by the circumstances of where wealth is concentrated. I'll vote aye so as to encourage the humane Geonomists in the Libers.

To an extent, the motion is trying to deal with the above. Whether it is more important to tax where it right to do so - or whether we should be looking at tax as a means to making outcomes more equal. So, the motion is putting forward in a sense that it is these things we should be taxing (which, actually is hugely progressive at it turns out, but that's by the by), rather than looking to achieve certain portions of wealth from across the wealth spectrum, as a priority.

[Birchington]

I generally agree with the gist of this, but I need a much simpler description before I offer my full support.

[Keckers]

(Original post by Birchington)
I generally agree with the gist of this, but I need a much simpler description before I offer my full support.

A simpler description of which part? The socialised ownership of land or Pigovian Taxation?

[Birchington]

(Original post by Keckers)
A simpler description of which part? The socialised ownership of land or Pigovian Taxation?

Primarily the motivation for implementing said things.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by Birchington)
Primarily the motivation for implementing said things.

Notes section for the first. 'If you tax something you get less of it' for the second.

[JPKC]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
To an extent, the motion is trying to deal with the above. Whether it is more important to tax where it right to do so - or whether we should be looking at tax as a means to making outcomes more equal. So, the motion is putting forward in a sense that it is these things we should be taxing (which, actually is hugely progressive at it turns out, but that's by the by), rather than looking to achieve certain portions of wealth from across the wealth spectrum, as a priority.

Bear with me here, how is taxing to correct the market influence of negative externalities (love that phrase) hugely progressive? (I see it with the land value tax that you guys introduced, because the wealthier the person the more land they probably own - though I don't see that being intrinsic to the tax, just a consequence of the current land ownership situation.)