Georgism - A Good Theory for Catholics to Explore?

[MarcusAndreas]

How does CAF feel about Georgism? I recently borrowed Henry George’s Progress and Poverty from the library and intend to read it soon. He laid out a theory of political economy that recognizes that all are entitled to the product of their labor, be it the product itself or wages in lieu of the product, making most forms of taxation wrong, but that taxation should be performed on the unimproved value of land.

This would be an economically efficient way to fund the government as there would be none of the deadweight losses brought about by conventional methods of taxation. It would also bring about social benefits, discouraging land speculation and monopolies, raising the wages of laborers, and making land more accessible to everybody.

While Georgists and Catholics may not have always gotten along historically, I think this may be a worthy theory for Catholics to explore. It recognizes the concept of the universal destination of goods while also recognizing the concept of property rights, which Henry George equated as being inseparable from the right to life. Henry George also recognized the danger of the concentration of economic power, which he saw as inseparable from control of land.
Gaudiem et spes:

God intended the earth with everything contained in it for the use of all human beings and peoples. Thus, under the leadership of justice and in the company of charity, created goods should be in abundance for all in like manner.

Perhaps Catholics should consider this from an economic and moral perspective? I’ve always struggled with accepting the idea of income taxes, sales taxes, etc. even if the Church has never spoken ill of them (Lord I believe help my unbelief) because they struck me as violations of property rights but as property comes from labor and no human made the Earth, it seems fair that those who control land should be taxed.

Any thoughts?

(For the record, while this may strike some as a socialistic theory, Henry George was a public opponent of Karl Marx and supported free trade and free markets and supported private property rights, he merely wanted to tax the possession of land.)

 

[jeannetherese]

all are entitled to the product of their labor, be it the product itself or wages in lieu of the product,

I’m not familiar with Georgism but am curious about it as discussed in your post.
A question:
If value added is a product of labor and, consequently, is remitted in the form of wages/product, what will return to the capitalist for reinvestment or as profit?

 

[MarcusAndreas]

Value doesn’t come from labor, I’m not a classicist nor a Marxist, value (utility) is subjective and diminishes with each unit consumed (solving the diamond and water paradox) but prices are determined by supply and demand.

 

[Lancer]

Recommend this enduring encyclical…RERUM NOVARUM.…it is comprehensive and morally and ethically on target…God’s wisdom and demands on all classes…and the State…the State nor we can fool God…no matter what our status and class…and we will be held accountable according to Jesus’ teachings…He is the standard…and His Church speaks/teaches in his Name in the Holy Spirit.

Bottom line: I understand the dilemma of current States’ abusive power…but why bother with Georgism…get the Truth–Christ Himself-- from the Church…which has 2000+ years of knowledge and experience in all that is good (which comes from God alone)…and has seen and dealt with all that is evil (which comes from man alone). The precision and faithfulness you are seeking…are found in the Church’s doctrines and teachings on the Common Good and Social Justice.

Pax Christi

RERUM NOVARUM

ENCYCLICAL OF **POPE LEO XIII
ON CAPITAL AND LABOR **

To Our Venerable Brethren the Patriarchs,
Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other ordinaries
of places having Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See.

Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor

[1]That the spirit of revolutionary change, which has long been disturbing the nations of the world, should have passed beyond the sphere of politics and made its influence felt in the cognate sphere of practical economics is not surprising. The elements of the conflict now raging are unmistakable, in the vast expansion of industrial pursuits and the marvellous discoveries of science; in the changed relations between masters and workmen; in the enormous fortunes of some few individuals, and the utter poverty of the masses; the increased self reliance and closer mutual combination of the working classes; as also, finally, in the prevailing moral degeneracy. The momentous gravity of the state of things now obtaining fills every mind with painful apprehension; wise men are discussing it; practical men are proposing schemes; popular meetings, legislatures, and rulers of nations are all busied with it - actually there is no question which has taken deeper hold on the public mind.

1. …But, when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one’s standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. “Of that which remaineth, give alms.”(14) It is a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity - a duty not enforced by human law. But the laws and judgments of men must yield place to the laws and judgments of Christ the true God, who in many ways urges on His followers the practice of almsgiving - ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive";(15) and who will count a kindness done or refused to the poor as done or refused to Himself - “As long as you did it to one of My least brethren you did it to Me.”(16) To sum up, then, what has been said: Whoever has received from the divine bounty a large share of temporal blessings, whether they be external and material, or gifts of the mind, has received them for the purpose of using them for the perfecting of his own nature, and, at the same time, that he may employ them, as the steward of God’s providence, for the benefit of others. “He that hath a talent,” said St. Gregory the Great, “let him see that he hide it not; he that hath abundance, let him quicken himself to mercy and generosity; he that hath art and skill, let him do his best to share the use and the utility hereof with his neighbor.”(17)

47…These three important** benefits, however, can be reckoned on only provided that a man’s means be not drained and exhausted by excessive taxation. The right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and the State has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good alone, but by no means to absorb it altogether. The State would therefore be unjust and cruel if under the name of taxation it were to deprive the private owner of more than is fair.
**

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

[/INDENT[

Also take a look at…

COMPENDIUM
OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE
OF THE CHURCH

TO HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL II
MASTER OF SOCIAL DOCTRINE AND
EVANGELICAL WITNESS
TO JUSTICE AND PEACE
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

The problem with economic theories is that it can look beautiful on paper, but, in practice works terribly.

Georgism, as you put it in the OP, seems a little familiar to Distributism. Are the two theories distinct?

 

[MarcusAndreas]

I believe that Georgists and distributists are aiming at similar goals. I’ve seen some distributist writers praise Georgism. I don’t consider myself a distributist because virtually all distibrutist writers have an abysmal understanding of economic science and no interest in correcting it, so I just consider myself a free market capitalist, while we’re all aiming for the same goal of distribution of property.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**I believe that Georgists and distributists are aiming at similar goals. I’ve seen some distributist writers praise Georgism. I don’t consider myself a distributist because virtually all distibrutist writers have an abysmal understanding of economic science and no interest in correcting it, so I just consider myself a free market capitalist, while we’re all aiming for the same goal of distribution of property. **

Marcus,

Distributism as I understand it is based on two fundamental principles: (1 Small is beautiful." (2 People should feed themselves.

The first principle, small is beautiful, is anathema to Corporate Capitalism. The second principle, people should feed themselves, is anathema to the Welfare State. Unfortunately, after Corporate Capitalism and the Welfare State put their heads together, Distributism did not stand a chance.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

All free market capitalists are enemies of the welfare-warfare corporatist state. The enemies may use our language but their policies are anathema to an actually free market, stripped of the regulations passed in the name of supporting the market and the worker but only benefiting the (big) business and the capitalist. These corporations do everything they can to prevent free market capitalism from existing (look how they got rid of Ron Paul) because it’s the opposite of what they want.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Marcus

**You are now aware that you are breathing. **

Yeah, more or less.