Simple alternative to 'stimulus package'

Remove consumption taxes. Why does no one mention this?! It would save a hell of a lot of paper pushing and it achieves what a 'stimulus package' does.

nwo

Reading what I posted now seems stupid saying no one has mentioned this. The opposition wanted to do this.

I start to wonder what would happen if you could sell your own land back to the Goverment.
Then rent it back at, say 3%, per year.
By owning the house on the land you have the option to rent that land.
There would be no way you could be pushed off the land if you owned the house thats on it.
That way there would be Trillions pushed back into the economy & people would build houses & buy stuff & create work.
As to where the Goverment gets the money to buy the land, well they make the money anyway & its getting paid back at the rate of 3% per year.
It would stop land speculation too, or the profit from it.

In NewZealand we have Maoris, they are sorta like a mix (in theory) of Native Americans, Blacks, Gypsys, but more like native Hawians.
They are always bitching about 'The Treaty' & having their land stolen from them back in the 1800's.
If, in NZ all the owners of land could sell it to the Goverment & then be able to buy it back & have houses on it etc.
The Maoris wouldn't have to pay the 3% land rent, as they own the land anyway.
They would still have to buy the house to put on it though.
But raising the money to buy a house would only be 1/2 as hard as raising the money to buy a house & land, leaving pewople with a lot of spare money to spend.

Any thoughts?

eesakiwi wrote:
As to where the Goverment gets the money to buy the land, well they make the money anyway & its getting paid back at the rate of 3% per year.

Nah man, you can't just create capital like that. Printing money will just cause inflation.

Capital = Value of $1 x Number of Dollars

If you increase the number of dollars, it decreases the value of a dollar, which is inflation. Capital just cannot be created by printing off more bills. The above equation isn't totally correct, but I think it illustrates my point more or less.

eesakiwi wrote:I start to wonder what would happen if you could sell your own land back to the Goverment.
Then rent it back at, say 3%, per year.
By owning the house on the land you have the option to rent that land.
There would be no way you could be pushed off the land if you owned the house thats on it.
That way there would be Trillions pushed back into the economy & people would build houses & buy stuff & create work.
As to where the Goverment gets the money to buy the land, well they make the money anyway & its getting paid back at the rate of 3% per year.
It would stop land speculation too, or the profit from it.

Land speculation is a large part of the problems today. What you propose may not get us out of this recession, but it will prevent another property bubble. It sounds a lot like what Henry George proposed in the late 19th century. He realized that land titles had already been granted, so having the government own land would be difficult. His solution was a tax on unimproved land values.

Using either of George's proposals (government owned land rented to the private sector or taxing unimproved land values) there would be no need for income tax!

Theoretically the government could do this right now. You do not fully own your land. No individual or private sector corporation can own land with allodial title. Most land is fee simple, that is the government can forcibly acquire private land. Fee simple also means the government can tax the land.

So it might just work?
WOW!

Yep, unimproved land values.
I'm not sure if it would devalue the $, its just a trade of land for cash.
Because the land has a value its not creating $, its just shifting them around.
Besides, at 3%, the land will get paid off in time anyway.

I'll look up that 'Henry George' source.
Thanks.

Connor MacManus wrote:

eesakiwi wrote:
As to where the Goverment gets the money to buy the land, well they make the money anyway & its getting paid back at the rate of 3% per year.

Nah man, you can't just create capital like that. Printing money will just cause inflation.

Capital = Value of $1 x Number of Dollars

If you increase the number of dollars, it decreases the value of a dollar, which is inflation. Capital just cannot be created by printing off more bills. The above equation isn't totally correct, but I think it illustrates my point more or less.

Actually, you CAN just do that. Bankers have been doing it for years. Inflation is a controlled process.

wu-soldier wrote:

Connor MacManus wrote:

eesakiwi wrote:
As to where the Goverment gets the money to buy the land, well they make the money anyway & its getting paid back at the rate of 3% per year.

Nah man, you can't just create capital like that. Printing money will just cause inflation.

Capital = Value of $1 x Number of Dollars

If you increase the number of dollars, it decreases the value of a dollar, which is inflation. Capital just cannot be created by printing off more bills. The above equation isn't totally correct, but I think it illustrates my point more or less.

Actually, you CAN just do that. Bankers have been doing it for years. Inflation is a controlled process.

Bankers create money by lending money they receive. It just so happens that the money they lend ends up getting deposited again. From a bank's point of view they cannot create money. They cannot lend more than they have in deposits. Central banks, however, can create money by printing it off or creating a law. This is because the central bank is the government's bank and so in eesakiwi's proposal it would be the central bank that is creating the money from thin air - they do not have to have deposits.

Unfortunately inflation will occur if the government compensates landowners. Think about how much land is worth compared to the average income. That would be creating at least 3 times GDP in one night! Robert Mugabe tried printing a lot of money and look where it has taken Zimbabwe.

Looks more like a spending package to me...