Ed Dodson responding...
Michael Bindner wrote (7/7/03):
As I have written on both my web sites, redistributional taxes and the empowerment of youth are a way to remove the concern of life versus property, by simply instituting a negative income tax in the spirit of the Earned Income Tax Credit (only larger by 6 times) to remove this concern. Using corporate rather than personal income taxes is considered a better vehicle for this, as it more neatly integrates the payment into salary and by doing so hastens the day that employee-owned firms adjust salary for child birth as a matter of course, ending the need for tax incentives for this purpose. Continuing to rely on personal income taxes, or even capital credit for each child, keeps the government's hand in this question forever. Adjusting corporate taxes is therefore the more libertarian alternative.
Ed Dodson here:
The Kelso-Adler vision of universal capitalism mitigates but does not replace, in my view, the potential for a citizens dividend to be collected and distributed out of the nation's rent fund. As the classic political economists all understood, rent is that portion of wealth accruing to those who control land that is better located or has greater potential productivity than what is available at the margin. As such, rent ought to serve as the primary source of public revenue; then, what is left over can be distributed as a citizens dividend. Potentially, taxes on productive economic activity (i.e., on earned incomes both personal and business and on commerce) can be reduced and/or eliminated.