Perseus,

Look at your claims:

"And in Australia, Rates are levied on land values, not building values."

Proven to be false, but you lack the moral ability (or perhaps the cognitive ability) to admit it.

Since modified to:

"And it should also be pointed out that Land Taxes are paid in every state and are levied on the valuation OF THE LAND."

But not in the Northern Territory - and nowhere to on the full site rental value either.

"So Australia, generally, already has what the author was proposing."

Generally, no it hasn't. The author suggests, quite explicitly that taxes should be shifted off labour and the products of labour to land use. That is obviously not the case in Australia.

So, Lev, we finally get to your point. After all your shifting categories and vague definitions, you, and apparently the author are arguing for a complete switch in taxation from income tax to taxes on capital. You want to jack up the tax on land by an amount that would enable the removal of income tax. Is that it?

And how, exactly would that assist the landless?
And how would that impact on the asset rich but income poor?

For a start, either rents will rise by the amount of the tax to a point where the renters will continue to pay the equivalent of their previous income tax, or, the price (value) of land will drop to factor in the changed cost structure. Banks will need to seriously adjust their borrowing limits (a credit squeeze) banruptcies will sky rocket and your renters will be out of a job.

Dream on, little broomstick cowboy.

So at last you've actually read the article.

"You want to jack up the tax on land by an amount that would enable the removal of income tax. Is that it?"

As much as is possible, yes. It was what was stated in the original article. Shift taxes off productive activity and on to use of resources.

How does this help the landless? Unlike other taxes, a tax on unimproved site value reduces the price of land. This is well known. It substantially reduces the cost of home affordability.

How does it affect the asset rich and income poor? Depend on what their assets are of course. If they are 'rich' through owning naught but land then the sensible thing is to redirect their invesments to something productive - like buildings. That is what Alanna's piece illustrated.

As for comments regarding rents, I have already provided several citations why this is not the case. I urge you to give yourself a basic reading in the economics of land and rent. To put simply you cannot pass on the cost a land tax to a renter as it is already included in the market value of a rent. This has been known, and proven, for over three hundred years.

You playground abuse follows the standard USENET rule for such matters; it is clear you've lost the argument when you have to resort to such foolishness.

Dude proposes we return to a standard 1950's british bolshie style substantial steepening of the tax regime and then has the gall to suggest that MY reading in economics is limited.

Gosh Lev, you must be in really big demand in Pyong Yang.

Evidently you haven't been reading what has been written.

There is no suggestion of replicating a 1950s British tax regime. The recommendation is lower income and company tax on revenues raised from production. This is quite the opposite of the British model of the 1950s ("tax and spend" Keynesianism). Indeed, if you knew British taxation as good as you think you do you will find that marginal income rates increased in the 1960s and 1970s.

The proposal actually means a net reduction in the amount of tax collected. The proposal is to reduce taxes on productive activity and increase taxes on resource use (such as pollution, site rental values).

This increases employment, reducing the need for social welfare, policing and related costs. As site rental values have extremely low transaction and compliance costs there are further savings; also avoidance is impossible.

As for the silly comments alluding to North Korea, I leave you with one from Milton Friedman. I presume you know who he is.

"Land should be taxed as much as possible, and improvements as little as possible."

Friedman, the arch-capitalist, got it right. And of course, North Korea doesn't raise public finances through site rental value does it?

Guess your economics is closer to North Korea - and mine is closer to Milton Friedman.

HTH HAND.

Quotes Freedman without the reference, and without the full context - par for the course.

Taxes on land are a tax on past savings. So in the face of unprecedented economic growth since the introduction of the GST, you want to reduce taxes on income AND consumption and load it all onto the past savings of empty nesters and retirees?

The net long term result would be;
incentive to save = zero,
voluntary savings = zero,
compulsory savings = limited by duress,
private investment = zero,
public investment = no match,
innovation = minimal,
economic growth = zero (or worse),
market capitalisation = reduced,

No, I was wrong, it is not a Pyong Yang scenario, more like Zimbabwe. The poor have lots of land but had no idea how to repair the confiscated tractor and now they starve.

So ask not for whom the supposed liberty bell tolls.