I have a lot of fans of Georgism / Harberger taxation in my life; naively requesting balance: what are the most interesting arguments against such property taxation schemes? n.b. Practical arguments like "people don't like it" or "it's politically impossible" aren't interesting!
Conversation
One interesting argument I don't know how to think about: how to make principled trade-offs between allocation and investment efficiency? Obviously extreme values on either side cause problems. How to find "ideal" social parameters?
2
3
Why do you believe there's a "principled trade-off?" You're assuming there's a right answer. That's a dangerous assumption.
Unless you're cool with someone who wants a different outcome to asses their answer is better than yours and forcing you to follow suit.
1
That's a good point. Maybe I mean something more like: by what mechanisms can a society justly reach consensus about how to make that tradeoff?
1
Why should it?
Why is it the responsibility of "society" (more accurately defined as "everyone but those who disagree with me" whenever it comes up)?
Why not accept there is no consensus and allow individuals to choose their own trade-offs?
1
Sure, I can reframe the problem with that lens. Say that a bunch of people want to choose to live in an experimental city which is trying out Harberger taxation to fund public goods. What mechanisms for parameterizing that tax are likely to appeal to different groups of people?
1
I'm not in the business of pretending to be a psychic. Luckily, few other folks are, either.
One sensible means of approach would be to create a game and watch people play it to see what they choose. But anyone that pretends to know the answer before they start are lying.
1
Replying to
I like the game proposal to reveal preferences!