"Georgism (Henry George) Doesn't Go Far Enough": Part 34: Monetary Reform: Series 1

Scott Baker:

So, Scott, land values change. Land value taxes would change. Land use doesn't always change. How do you make this jibe? If I want to let my land rightly rest, how do I afford the tax?

Bear in mind that my proposals do away with taxes altogether. We don't need them. Also keep in mind that my proposals go further than George's in restoring the Commons. I restore the Commons in full.

Don't fall back on "not politically doable." George's proposals were/are radical enough that if we go that far, we may as well go the whole distance.

Monetary Reform: Series 1: here

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Libertarian Capitalism, Monetary Reform, United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Darris Hawks

      Georgism includes a citizen's dividend. You would be able to let your land rest because you are paid about equal to the rent of an average plot of land.

      • "...average plot...."? Regardless, I don't have any average in mind.

        In addition, a person who teaches Georgism said I would not be allowed to let the land rest as I have in mind. I have not read all things George though. I can't choose between the two of you concerning which of you is right about it where Georgism is concerned.

    • intalecshul

      I do not believe you have gone far enough with your examination of Georgism!
      Nothing in a Georgist solution prevents one from resting the land, or doing anything else.
      The
      Mosaic law applied to a settled, agrarian, tribal society. It
      distributed land to tribes, clans and families, with an orderly system
      for continued division and for retention of familial land.

      Short of implementing a biblical theocracy, are there measures we could
      take that would apply to a modern economy that would have much the same
      effect ? That was exactly what George was aiming at, and in my opinion,
      he succeeded!The Georgist proposal looks to acheive an equivalent aim
      within a vastly changed economy that is highly individualized,
      specialized, urbanized, and mobile.

      If you wanted to get to a more old-fashioned, decentralized,
      "distributist," even agrarian economy, something like the Georgist
      approach "virtual land redistribution" would be a likely vehicle to
      allow such a movement to happen- and moreover, to prevent all the wealth
      from re-centralizing in short order.

      As the previous commenter noticed, most Georgists advocate either a
      "citizens dividend" or some form of homestead exemption from the rent
      that would cover the value of a median residential lot.

      In the
      first model, after paying the differential rents into a common pot (most
      commonly, the same local government that currently collects property
      tax), the rent is used to fund government as well as perhaps pay an
      equal dividend to each citizen, thus "redistributing" the land
      monetarily.

      Since we have lands that are under local/State
      jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction, this model would likely include
      two dividend checks. See the Alaska Permanent Fund model, which is a
      kind of CD funded by the State's oil and natural gas wealth.

      Also,
      all taxes and unnecessary restrictions on any economic activity
      whatsoever, and all personal (produced) property will have been
      rescinded, so saving will be easy. If you want to rest your land,
      nothing would stop you.

      All
      these reforms would be phased in over a number of years to give ample
      adjustment time. We anticipate that many of the benefits (such as
      cessation of land speculation/waste) would set in even before the
      phase-in is complete.

      • I wrote:

        ... land values change. Land value taxes would change. Land use doesn't always change. How do you make this jibe? If I want to let my land rightly rest, how do I afford the tax?

        Bear in mind that my proposals do away with taxes altogether. We don't need them. Also keep in mind that my proposals go further than George's in restoring the Commons. I restore the Commons in full.

        Don't fall back on "not politically doable." George's proposals were/are radical enough that if we go that far, we may as well go the whole distance.