Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Global financial collapse: What’s happening to us?

By Bryan Kavanagh - posted Friday, 27 April 2012


Having demolished the claim of the real estate lobby concerning inefficiency and ineffectiveness of a land tax, neo-classical economics circulates a canard of its very own: “The percentage [of property rent in the economy] has dropped to well under one percent today” (Buchholz, 2007:86). “But by 2000 urban land rents represented only four percent of national income” (Clarke, 2007:198). “Rent is one percent of the U.S. income in 2004” (Krugman and Wells, 2006:283). “Rental income was 4.7 billion, or 0.079% of GDP in 1992” (Case and Fair, 1994:559). “Rental income is $7.9 billion of a total GNP of $5,234 billion, or 1.5 per cent” (Baumol and Blinder, 1991:137) and “… land rent forms such a small percentage of national income: that 2 per cent is nothing compared to the present tax percentages which is around 30” (Pen 1974:210).

These claims are made to look silly by Mason Gaffney, Professor of Economics at the University of California (Riverside) who actually bothers to do the required research in The Hidden Taxable Capacity of Land” in The International Journal of Social Economics, 36(4), instead of plucking figures out of the air.

Similarly, in The Taxable Capacity of Australian Land and Resources (Australian Tax Forum, 18 (1), 2003), following a painstaking time series analysis, Dr Terry Dwyer announces: “The ‘bottom line’ reinforces the overall conclusion from Table 4 that land-based tax revenues are indeed sufficient to allow the total abolition of company and personal income tax.”

Advertisement

Land rent only four per cent of the economy? Less than one per cent? Bah, humbug! Try thirty per cent plus!

In the face of facts, the evidence that the GFC is the inevitable outcome of a pathological tax system fining labour and business whilst encouraging real estate bubbles becomes compelling.

The diagram below assists to explain the process: effective demand is being choked off by the wedge driven into GDP by increasing shares to taxation and private rent seeking which diminishes the returns to labour and capital.

The analysis is entirely consistent with the conclusions of The Henry Review.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

24 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Bryan Kavanagh is a real estate valuer and associate of the Land Values Research Group.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Bryan Kavanagh

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Bryan Kavanagh
Article Tools
Comment 24 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy