Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Europe�s Young Grow Agitated Over Future Prospects

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Europe�s Young Grow Agitated Over Future Prospects
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:06 am Post subject:

Gwangjuboy wrote:

With respect to the abolition of the monarchy - and presumably the aristocracy - how would you deal with their massive land holdings, which equal a third of all the land in the UK for example? I am not just referring to the Queen, but the large number of dukes and even greater number of earls whose ancestors never acquired that land via the market. Do you count it as the state's and thus subject it to a process of privatisation? Or do you consider it already private?

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

* Imposition of taxes on the use of land (specifically its value and size)
* Abolition of all other taxes
* Abolition of monarchy
* Abolition of drug prohibition
* Abolition of state-run healthcare
* Abolition of state-run education
* Abolition of government building restrictions
* Abolition of welfare benefits, to be replaced with compulsory alms-giving*
* Near-complete abolition of all spending on defence
* Abolition of all green/climate legislation
* Abolition of all state support for banks
* Abolition of all state activity, save for law & order, scientific research and the collection of taxes thereto
* Re-introduction of capital punishment**

* minimum payment of 1% of monthly income donated to charity or charities of choice
** mandatory euthanasia for perpetrators of gratuitous violence and murder

Gwangjuboy

Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:02 pm Post subject:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

Gwangjuboy wrote:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

So they keep the land and pay taxes on it? That sounds like an incredibly simple 'solution' to an incredibly complex issue. Presumably, in this fantasy world of yours, social housing would be withdrawn and the right to buy scheme - or some variant thereof - would be uniformly introduced.

So it begs the question: Why not apply the same logic to the aristocracy? Sure, much time has certainly passed since they secured their state handout - let's be clear that their landholdings are nothing but - and they've had a few centuries to rationalise their own entitlement, but that land needs to be exposed to the forces of capitalism.

Moreover, believe me when I say this, because I've met these types, and noone, I mean noone, has a stronger sense of entitlement. I always find it odd that libertarians in the UK tend to be far more tolerant of this sense of entitlement than the supposed entitlement felt by those who languish on the dole for months on end in what is essentially a dead-end economy.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:03 pm Post subject:

Leon wrote:

mises wrote:

Leon wrote:

mises wrote:

Quote:

I think it's absurd that its viewed as acceptable for one sex to fully support the other, and I think that it demeans both sexes.

I think this is ridiculous. The couple supports the family. A family is a unit.

I meant financially. As someone who is free market and anti-socialist maybe look at stay at home moms as recieving some sort of domestic welfare if that makes the point more comfertable to you.

We have very different ideas about marriage and the family. My spouse will not be receiving welfare. Our family will have an income.

Is your wife a stay at home mom/person. If that is the case the family doesn't have an income, you do. In that situation it could be said to be similar to her receiving welfare from your salary.

Where do I stop and my family begin?

Koveras

Joined: 09 Oct 2008

Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:01 pm Post subject:

Leon's logic is absurdly atomising; what's to stop a wife from charging her husband for cooking his dinner? Far healthier to follow the vital logic of one flesh.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:38 pm Post subject:

I'm not a cultural conservative, so it really is no skin off my nose how anyone arranges their home. Different strokes for different folks (sorry, it doesn't get any more sophisticated than that for me on this matter). But Elizabeth Warren has revealed that two incomes are less stable than one. Families who do elect to have two incomes should budget based on their strongest single earner.

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:06 pm Post subject:

Gwangjuboy wrote:

So they keep the land and pay taxes on it?

I'm intent on doing away with the landowning class entirely. The idle rich are just as parasitic as the idle poor, if not more so. The abolition of the monarchy is a separate issue really. I would like to abolish the monarchy for its own sake, because royalty is an affront to merit, achievement, intellect and aspiration. Nobody in their right mind would defend the existence of a monarchy. Anyone who not only defends but actually admires monarchies is clearly mad and can be ignored readily. Land ownership however, which of course isn't the same as aristocracy though the two issues overlap, should be done away with for the practical blessings it would bring rather than being an intrinsic moral good.

There are two kinds of land ownership: (1) where the landowner invites production to take place on his land and he collects profitable rents. (2) where the landowner allows his land to sit idle. Landowner 2, typically a rich aristocrat, is the real problem, but landowner 1 would dissipate as a logical consquence of abolishing landownership. There can be absolutely no justification for withholding land from production; the state must essentially nationalize land, renting any bit of land out to whoever wishes to use it for any reason he sees fit.

Under the current system, landowner 2 has no incentive to surrender his land to production. Imposing fairly punitive taxation on landowners will encourage idle land being passed into profitable industry.

Last edited by Sergio Stefanuto on Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:53 pm; edited 1 time in total

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:45 pm Post subject:

mises wrote:

Leon wrote:

mises wrote:

Leon wrote:

mises wrote:

Quote:

I think it's absurd that its viewed as acceptable for one sex to fully support the other, and I think that it demeans both sexes.

I think this is ridiculous. The couple supports the family. A family is a unit.

I meant financially. As someone who is free market and anti-socialist maybe look at stay at home moms as recieving some sort of domestic welfare if that makes the point more comfertable to you.

We have very different ideas about marriage and the family. My spouse will not be receiving welfare. Our family will have an income.

Is your wife a stay at home mom/person. If that is the case the family doesn't have an income, you do. In that situation it could be said to be similar to her receiving welfare from your salary.

Where do I stop and my family begin?

You're not your wife or your children, you're your own man. Considering divorce rates, this seems ever more true. To be honest, of course in many ways it all is family money, I don't feel extremely strongly about that position and that extent of that argument was more born of desk warming boredom than firm conviction. I simply don't like the notion of a kept woman, and have a hard time understanding how women could be content with that.

UknowsI

Joined: 16 Apr 2009

Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:58 pm Post subject:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

Under the current system, landowner 2 has no incentive to surrender his land to production. Imposing fairly punitive taxation on landowners will encourage idle land being passed into profitable industry.

There is to be no compensation. The party's over. If they wish to remain the legal proprietors of their land, they can, but they shall have to pay tax to the state in order to do so, and children would be forbidden by law from inheriting it. Owning land would thus become unprofitable and pointless. And rightly so.

The consequences of this would be the owners of capital paying rent to the state based on a combination of value and size - the only remotely just and practical form of taxation.

I agree that passive land ownership is bad, but it is not trivial to abolish it without negative consequences. I will give you an example by comparing Sweden and Norway. These two countries are quite similar, but Sweden has a significant higher tax on land ownership. Owning a house has costs beyond the loss of return on the invested capital because of the increased risk and reduced mobility. When the taxation makes both alternatives financially equal, the result is that most people in Norway live in houses they own by themselves while people in Sweden to a much larger degree live in apartments they rent. The problem with renting a house is that you don't feel as responsible for the house. They will more easily let it decay and have little intensives to make improvements. In Sweden an additional problem is that many of these houses are state owned. I am sure you're aware of how that leads to problems. If the taxation is done

You propose that the taxation should be so high that only active ownership is profitable. I think this is a good idea. However, just taxation is very difficult for land because location is much more important than the actual size of the property or even the buildings on top. The value of the location can rapidly change as trends change and the city centres and social demographics move.

Also I find your suggestion against inheritance of land as unrealistic. If people can't inherit property, then companies can't own properties either, or parents would just make a holding company for their estates.

Summarized, I agree that taxation of land is one of the most sensible forms of taxation, but it shouldn't be so high that people limit the use of land artificially.

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 4:58 am Post subject:

UKnowsI wrote:

Also I find your suggestion against inheritance of land as unrealistic. If people can't inherit property, then companies can't own properties either, or parents would just make a holding company for their estates.

Those comments (which I actually deleted in an edit before you replied) were solely discussing landed gentry. Nothing could be more obscene than denying people the right to inherit family property. I was referring to the inheritance of land, not of property.

UknowsI wrote:

I will give you an example by comparing Sweden and Norway.

But the Swedes, in addition to paying land tax, also pay 50% in income tax. I would abolish all taxes, save for land tax.

UknowsI wrote:

Summarized, I agree that taxation of land is one of the most sensible forms of taxation, but it shouldn't be so high that people limit the use of land artificially.

I said "fairly punitive". Taxes deliberately intended to produce less of something (in this case, the idle ownership of land) must, of necessity, be somewhat punitive, otherwise rich parasites will just keep their land and pay their taxes. If people actually want to do that, I don't think there's anything humane that can be done to stop them, but I think it's pretty unlikely. Landowners tend to own huge swathes of land which, if taxed, would cost a fortune and produce little benefit. But I agree, striking the delicate balance between incentivizing rich parasites abandoning their land without penalizing production is no easy matter. That's why size matters. Those wishing to own vast chunks of land and exclude others from it must pay the community (the government) for what economists call "opportunity cost". I suggest $xyz per square meter rising and falling in accordance with market value

UknowsI wrote:

The value of the location can rapidly change as trends
change and the city centres and social demographics move.

Land tax advocates tend to view that as a positive, intentional consequence

UknowsI wrote:

I agree that passive land ownership is bad, but it is not trivial to abolish it without negative consequences

There are always unforeseen consequences with anything, but with all due respect, the example of a negative consequence that you gave (in Sweden) was actually fairly trivial, at least compared with the dreadful folly of taxes on income and sales. What gives rise to a given phemonenon in a country is always its milieu. In Sweden, that includes very high rates of numerous forms of taxation. There's no reason at all to suppose that tax on land-use, in and of itself, will give rise to those Swedish conditions

Imposing tax on land ought to cause the price of land to decrease because people will demand less of it (or, in an effort to avoid tax altogether, not demand it at all). In consequence, affordable housing, even for the very poor, will emerge in fairly short order. This is particularly so given that I intend to abolish building restrictions.

Nothing could be more sensible than demanding that people pay the community for the land they wish to call their own and exclude others from using.

Gwangjuboy

Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:35 am Post subject:

Quote:

[quote="Sergio Stefanuto"]I'm intent on doing away with the landowning class entirely. The idle rich are just as parasitic as the idle poor, if not more so.

Agreed.

Quote:

The abolition of the monarchy is a separate issue really. I would like to abolish the monarchy for its own sake, because royalty is an affront to merit, achievement, intellect and aspiration. Nobody in their right mind would defend the existence of a monarchy. Anyone who not only defends but actually admires monarchies is clearly mad and can be ignored readily.

Again I wholeheartedly agree - the monarchy is the antithesis of meritocracy. Sometimes it is suggested that the monarchy generates massive tourism revenue, but not only is this a poor argument in its defence, it's also highly contentious, as such revenue is quite difficult to gauge, and the extent to which the UK would see a decline in tourism if the monarchy was abolished is highly debatable.

Afterall, noone is suggesting that Buckingham Palace be torn down, and London will still be London with or without the monarchy. As a city, it still holds enough appeal to draw in the visitors as do other parts of the country like the Lake District, Norfolk, and the Peak District etc.

Quote:

Land ownership however, which of course isn't the same as aristocracy though the two issues overlap, should be done away with for the practical blessings it would bring rather than being an intrinsic moral good.

Of course, I would argue that the practical implications of major land reform are not only morally right, but that they can be rationalised on economic grounds too - on the latter point I am sure we are in full agreement.

Quote:

There are two kinds of land ownership: (1) where the landowner invites production to take place on his land and he collects profitable rents. (2) where the landowner allows his land to sit idle. Landowner 2, typically a rich aristocrat, is the real problem, but landowner 1 would dissipate as a logical consquence of abolishing landownership. There can be absolutely no justification for withholding land from production; the state must essentially nationalize land, renting any bit of land out to whoever wishes to use it for any reason he sees fit.

Under the current system, landowner 2 has no incentive to surrender his land to production. Imposing fairly punitive taxation on landowners will encourage idle land being passed into profitable industry.

I agree with much of what you said here, which is not always the case when debating with libertarians, although I have recgonised throughout that libertarians do at least have some sensible policies - like on this issue, drugs, and conscription.

Another issue which is important here - again I would be shocked if you disagreed - relates to the planning laws in the UK. Government regualtions make it far too difficult for housing developers to commit to new builds in what is an already volatile market. Planning laws need to be significantly loosened, and the power of local people - generally snobbish rural dwellers - eroded.

The housing market in the UK has failed its people miserably in that regard. The government has overseen a huge population rise, but has recklessly failed to let new builds keep up with demand. That's why there are a huge number of people working and claiming housing benefit. Low wage earners are being severely punished as the housing market is restrained by the aforementioned problems. With respect to the aristocracy, I might go about things slightly differently to you I might add - I think the state should nationalise these holdings and pay very modest compensation before selling the land privately giving priority to property developers. I acknowledge that this would result in problems, but I think they could be overcome.

comm

Joined: 22 Jun 2010

Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 7:13 am Post subject:

I wish a courageous little country would take up Sergio's ideas and try them out. They look solid, but I'd be concerned about people being afraid to invest in capital if the cost of land is unpredictable. I wouldn't want to build a factory, calculating my land cost per year as X, only to have it change to 3X in the proceeding years. Also, how would "abolishing state support for banks" relate to centralized banking? Or do you mean getting government out of the bailout business?

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:26 am Post subject:

Comm wrote:

I wouldn't want to build a factory, calculating my land cost per year as X, only to have it change to 3X in the proceeding years

Dramatic increases in site value are likely to be predicated on a similarly large increase in profits, since new businesses would likely spend money at your factory - or if not, at least provide services (shops and restaurants perhaps) that weren't previously available. But of course, not necessarily, and if not, a business may become unprofitable and forced to sell and relocate. As a general rule though, higher value areas would be the most profitable areas to be in, offsetting higher taxes. But I confess it's all rather simplistic, for the road to success is fraught with pain and difficulty.

Comm wrote:

Also, how would "abolishing state support for banks" relate to centralized banking? Or do you mean getting government out of the bailout business?

The latter (moral hazard)

rollo

Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 6:01 am Post subject:

Great thread and really interesting ideas. I hate to get back on track. I read this morning that Spain's unemployment rate would soon top 20%. Dear god!! How long before the rioting begins?

johnnyenglishteacher2

Joined: 03 Dec 2010

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:33 am Post subject:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

chellovek wrote:

what would you advocate instead?

The system of democracy we presently have is a monstrosity, with the hoi polloi and bourgeois leftist parasites voting themselves undue largesse. We have no obligation, moral or otherwise, to ensure that those with neither capital or skill are rewarded with inflated sums of remuneration. It is truly a delight to witness this miserably indecent system's imminent collapse. I consider myself immensely lucky to be alive in such exciting times as to witness the death of European Social Democracy. But fear not, since following the economic armageddon of the coming years, my particular brand of libertarianism (namely geoliberianism) shall be the definitive socio-economic system of the twentieth century and probably forevermore, since it shall be so unfathomably prosperous!

* Imposition of taxes on the use of land (specifically its value and size)
* Abolition of all other taxes
* Abolition of monarchy
* Abolition of drug prohibition
* Abolition of state-run healthcare
* Abolition of state-run education
* Abolition of government building restrictions
* Abolition of welfare benefits, to be replaced with compulsory alms-giving*
* Near-complete abolition of all spending on defence
* Abolition of all green/climate legislation
* Abolition of all state support for banks
* Abolition of all state activity, save for law & order, scientific research and the collection of taxes thereto
* Re-introduction of capital punishment**

* minimum payment of 1% of monthly income donated to charity or charities of choice
** mandatory euthanasia for perpetrators of gratuitous violence and murder

The dawn of a second enlightenment is upon us!

May European Social Democracy breathe its last breath and never shall posterity be inculcated with the tenuous virtues of the parasitic left.

Sergio, you're in cloud cuckoo land.

No country which has universal, public health care is even considering scrapping it.

Nobody is going to scrap all green legislation. That's what stops us breathing in massively polluted air and keeps our waters (relatively) clean.

The death penalty won't be re-introduced in Europe - too much chance of killing an innocent person.

Defence spending won't be abolished - that's what allows our nations to go into other countries to make sure we get the resources.

State-run education won't be abolished for the obvious reason that we need a highly educated population, and privatising the education system will not allow us to do that.

Welfare benefits won't be abolished because the government is going to allow people to starve to death if they lose their job.

Drug prohibition might be lifted, but probably not for hard drugs, although the governments will hopefully switch to treatment rather than punishment.

You can sit there dreaming about all of these things as long as you like, but they aren't going to happen, because apart from a lunatic fringe minority (Daily Telegraph readers mainly), nobody supports these policies. You'll live and die under a social democratic model, which has provided a better quality of life than any other system which has ever existed.

By the way, did you know we're not in the twentieth century anymore? Wink