This is our monthly place to discuss relevant topics that have not appeared in recent posts.
His estimates are conservative. As far as I know, he does not apply the ATCOR principle, the idea that ground-rent increases as other taxes are removed, which can hardly be questioned in a general sense, since value of land is precisely determined by the value of its opportunities of use. However, even 20% close to replacing all existing taxes. I believe Foldvary also points out that the need for transfer payments would decease dramatically in a system that distributed incomes justly and did not legalize the dual robbery of rent and tax appropriation.
http://blog.sethroberts.net is still up, with the last post from a week ago. (though it will be updated much less frequently, for obvious reasons)
I just read Bryan Caplan's comments here, which give some valuable context for Tetlock's findings:
Now my question above doesn't seem good since it's likely that the reason formal models beat experts is that the experts didn't have time to create their own models for Tetlock's surveys.
(I deleted the above comment and forgot that deletion just turns comments anonymous here.)
probably time to remove Roberts from the blogroll. all traces of his site are gone
I was just listening to Tetlock's book. He says models make better forecasts than experts. So I was wondering...are we making any progress in automating away the experts?
Well to be fair a lot of countries already tax land rents to some degree, directly or indirectly.
Since no qualified folks have accepted your challenge, I'll try. You write, "As a thought experiment, suppose the revenues collected from LVT were dumped in the ocean, and all other taxes remain the same. I have the impression that this would cause businesses to cluster into more densely concentrated developments, which would make the economy more efficient."
Clustering and efficiency, yes. But it's doesn't seem realistic that the degree of increased efficiency will suffice to offset the losses from outright value destruction. ----------------------LTV may not be a panacea, but it does seem an unusually efficient and fair tax. So why don't we hear neoliberal, conservative, or libertarian economists advocating it. (Milton Friedman appears to have been an exception.)
[The cynical answer is the coalition politics played by powerful landowners.]
Foldvary estimates land value tax to 20% of income which he says would be enough if we didn't have transfer payments. But of course we do have transfer payments, so as I said we'd need other taxes too.
I think that would work. Rent on land is essentially a tax.
Total resource rents of Australia.
For some pretty conservative estimates, go to page 19 in Professor Fred Foldvary's paper: http://www.foldvary.net/wor...
Mason Gaffney estimates that the potential land rent in the USA is at least $5.3 trillion annually. He has several papers estimating national land values. He applies an additional level of analysis called ATCOR, which not all economists accept.
The Federal Reserve meticulously estimated that the total non-edifice ground value of greater NYC was $28.2 trillion. That is greater than other estimates of nation-wide land value, which rely partly on self-reported land value that people underestimate for tax depreciation purposes (cannot depreciate land).http://newyorkfed.org/resea...
What if all land was leased from the state by the highest bidder (from whom others could lease the land)?
I know the George Theorem. Have a cite on rent stats?
That is empirically and theoretically inaccurate Robin. Ground rent is between 20-40% of GDP in every country, and according to Stiglitz's Henry George Theorem, it is almost always enough to finance government spending.
What am I missing?
I think you are mistaken.