Interesting Links for 24-08-2022

[andrewducker]

1. Our system of land ownership is an unjust anomaly

.
(tags:land property housing history economics )

2. Do *you* need a philosophical consultant?

(tags:philosophy consultation )

3. Why the death of DVDs meant that movies changed

(tags:movies business economics dvd media )

4. Edinburgh public transport action plan: new tramline, more bus lanes, possibly re-opening South Sub and potentially even a ferry to Fife

(tags:trams buses transport edinburgh )

Comments

[simont]

#2 is putting me in mind of the passage in Cryptonomicon about sermons:

It is conventional now to think of clerics simply as presiders over funerals and weddings. Even people who routinely go to church (or synagogue or whatever) sleep through the sermons. That is because the arts of rhetoric and oratory have fallen on hard times, and so the sermons tend not to be very interesting.

But there was a time when places like Oxford and Cambridge existed almost solely to train ministers, and their job was not just to preside over weddings and funerals but also to say something thought-provoking to large numbers of people several times a week. They were the retail outlets of the profession of philosophy.

So if priests delivering sermons are the retail outlet of philosophy, delivering bite-sized but essentially standardised products to large numbers of end users, then I guess "philosophical consultants" like this person would fit nicely alongside them in the same analogy, corresponding to some kind of service provider who offers something specific to the individual client's personal needs and circumstances, for when the general-purpose off-the-shelf retail offering isn't hitting the spot. Like a tailor, perhaps, or a tax accountant.

[andrewducker]

There is an argument that the number of "second sons" who went to the clergy, and were then bored for large chunks of the time, and wandered about the place discovering large chunks of physics, chemistry, paleontology etc. shows how useful a basic income would be.

[nancylebov]

#1. One of the challenges would be getting from where we are now to a more humane system of land ownership.

I can also recommend James C. Scott's _Two Cheers for Anarchism_ (a short book) and _The Art of Not Being Governed_ (a long book).

[dewline]

1. Definitely in need of repairs and updating.

3. Coming back to this later today/tonight.

[cmcmck]

4. Other half is an honorary Fifer since he attended St Andrews and me too as I was at Dundee (I get teased by his St Andrean friends for that)! :o)

[channelpenguin]

1. As the owner of a small chunk of land who will this year have to fill out ridiculous forms for a revised land tax, I'm torn. I'd be VERY upset to lose my little house / field / garden / orchard, especially if it were due to huge taxes. I loathe recurring bills. I'd truly like to live as money-free as possible, but it seems to be getting harder and harder. I could make this place feed and shelter me plus a few, with a decent barter system with my neighbours for dairy and wood. (I've got a well, and am not on mains sewage so I don't need much else assuming my clothes and tools will last 25 years ish. Hmmm.) But I'll never get to that stage due to too many mandatory bills. It sort of annoys me. I don't want to keep having to earn money when I don't actually NEED NEED what it can buy.

Would some schools of thought want to take this away from me in the name of some notion of 'fairness'? Didn't I earn it?

[cmcmck]

We have been pondering on buying a bit of woodland locally (rural north Shropshire) to protect it from the developers as there are always odd stretches on the market.

This would almost certainly be a deal breaker.

There may be many more reasons than one why people own land, for sure.

[calimac]

3) The argument that "they can't make small movies any more because all movies have to be blockbusters now" is at least as old as the modern blockbuster, i.e. nearly 50 years now. And yet, small movies of quality continue to be made. I just watched a movie about the Sutton Hoo archaeological dig, for jym's sake.

[anna_wing]

A tax on real property is a wealth tax, and usually it goes up with the value of the property i.e. the increase in the owner's wealth, so it's a progressive tax, which is fair. In my system, I pay property tax based on the current rental value of the property times the relevant percentage for that income bracket, subject to whatever deductions are allowed (eg repairs, owner-occupation, whether it's one's only property etc etc).

Scott is interesting to read, and one can see why he would be ideologically appealing to some.

[channelpenguin]

How is an increase in the value of *your own residential property* an increase in wealth? Unless you sell up to live in a tent, you can't realise that "wealth" as all other properties have also gone up.

Is it fair to an older person, who bought a modest house long ago, for them to face ever increasing bills each year just to live there? Or move (somewhere far less nice).

And what if they then have a small apartment already bought at a good price ready for when the house is too much for them? Sure tax on the rent if they rent it out, sure tax on the sale of the bigger house WHEN they sell it.

I feel really personally in the firing line of all this. I'm not at all poor - but I'm really really not wealthy.

I'm all for taxing the REALLY wealthy - and in ways they can't dodge. But of course laws are made by those with massive interest in avoiding that! I'm not sure it makes sense for the poorer to want to punish the moderately well off. Shouldn't we join forces against the truly wealthy?

[anna_wing]

(a) It's a financial asset, and can be collateral for a loan, which can be invested etc etc; and (b) a tax based on value would only increase if that modest house has increased in value since it was bought, which is an increase in the owner's wealth.

A property tax also helps to pay for the creation and maintenance of the common societal infrastructure that the occupants use and that their property requires, and that contributes to the property's value - roads, utilities, public safety and security ("law and order" as it's commonly known), public transport systems etc etc etc.

Why should people not be taxed according to their wealth? I don't entirely understand where punishment comes into this.

[channelpenguin]

It's home. Not to be risked? Hmm that's no great argument I'll admit. Those of us who grew up the working poor don't tend to think of such ways of use of a house or indeed really "invest" successfully.

To me, just would make it seem pointless buying and paying off the mortgage if you then still face ever increasing bills each year when you now don't have income. Especially if such taxes are introduced when you are already fairly old, and have not and now CANNOT financially plan for it (such plans need decades and stable rules). There's no risk free inflation beating "savings" possible, remember.

I suppose my angle is "just because I was moderately well off once, doesn't mean I am now or in the future". Can I not just have a break. A small "win", a bit of escape from the eternal grind of earning? Should not my past hard work, investment and intelligent choices count? Should I not be able to do good with my good fortune? I gave a friend in need bed and board for nearly 2 years until he found a job. Another friend had very reduced rent when COVID meant he could not work. Tax people like me too hard and we can't do that.

We already have other taxes for infrastructure. At least where I am.

[conuly]

1. Our system of land ownership is an unjust anomaly

This is not the expected takeaway, really a tangent, but I'm reminded forcibly of the fact that everybody who pompously natters on and on about THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS is shocked, just shocked, to be informed that "the commons" worked pretty well up until the industrial era - and then really only started to fail because of the rich.

[cmcmck]

Although enclosure got started in the 17th century, my own period of study, well before the Industrial era.

And yes, that was the rich land grabbing too.

[conuly]

I was thinking specifically of enclosure, but idk, I guess I thought it was a little later. Still....