The argument that any restriction on the private ownership of lands (and it's associated resources) as simply pure communist idealogy can really be debunked by this apt quote from the above wiki article.
"since natural resources are given freely by Nature rather than being products of human labor or entrepreneurship, no single individual should be allowed to acquire unearned revenues by monopolizing their commerce".
Very interesting point indeed....
It's not a communist conspiracy (are the League of Rights over-represented on this forum or what?)
Though I accept it ould be political suicide, it's actually a very simple and elegant way to collect tax.
Once you accept that govts need a specific $ amount, you simply want your tax system to be effective, efficient and fair.
The upside of taxing something like land instead of the literally 1000s of taxes we have now (with all the attendant costs of collection and effort spent avoiding) is that it can't be hidden and gives great certainty.
Simply look at the value of land held in private hands, assess the $ required to run the show and calculate a rate. Run it like witholding tax giving people/companies the option to pay as they go (the amount owed can be set in advance and fixed). Obviously it would flow through to rents, costs and everything that is made or grown on land (which, of course, is everything) but the savings from managing the current dog's breakfast would end up in our pockets.
Down side is it would effect export industries at the same level as domestic industries, but, again, not needing thousands of accountants and tax lawyers would save a bomb.
Interesting academic argument but the average punter would run a mile in spite of the fact that they are being stung everywhere at the moment and would be paying less tax overall as a result of the inherent efficiency of such a model.
Ultimately, like the GST, it is too transparent to be politically acceptable.
