A basic principle of economics holds that it is highly
efficient to tax rents because such taxes don’t cause any
distortions. A tax on land rents doesn’t make the land go
away. Indeed, the great nineteenth-century progressive
Henry George argued that government should rely solely
on such a tax. Today, of course, we realize that rents can
take many forms – they can be collected not just on
land, but on the value of natural resources like oil, gas,
minerals, and coal. There are other sources of rents, such
as those derived from the exercise of monopoly power.
A stiff tax on all such rents would not only reduce
inequality but also reduce incentives to engage in the
kind of rent-seeking activities that distort our economy
and our democracy.
– Joseph E. Stiglitz
The Price of Inequality
[M]inor tweaks in the economic system are not going to solve the problem… The underlying problem is the whole structure of our economy, which
has been oriented more at increasing rents than increasing productivity and
real economic growth that would be widely shared in our society … one
has always to think about issues of shifting so that, for instance, just a tax
on capital might be shifted, and a lot of the models have shown this would
happen, but a tax on land, rents, would actually address some of the
underlying problems. This is the idea that Henry George had more than
a hundred years ago, but this analysis that I have done ... goes one step
beyond Henry George. Henry George argued that a land tax was nondistortionary, but this analysis says that a land tax actually improves the
productivity of the economy because you encourage people to invest in productive capital
rather than into rent generating. Well, the result of the shift in the composition
of the savings towards more productive investment leads to a more
productive economy and in the end leads to a more equal society.
– Joseph E. Stiglitz [Speech in Paris–April 8th, 2015]
No comments:
Post a Comment