When I'm President [Edited]

[Vlerchan]

The Vlerchan Plan seeks to place American's back at the centre of economic decision making. Vlerchan realises that the entrepreneurial spirit of the average person that built this proud nation. Through tax reform and altering of incentives to get people back working - back dreaming: back designing: back building - he promises to foster the dynamism for the benefit of all. Today's there's too few Americans working at no fault of their own: the Vlerchan plan intends to correct this.
It's the system that has priced too many people out of the labour market. Vlerchan promises to introduce a flat tax. Those earning above 50,000 per year will pay 18%. Those under pay nothing.
The Vlerchan plan plan intends to get more people into entrepreneurship. One such mechanism will be through those that open businesses receiving entitlements for up to 12 months. This will help those get their feet on the ground and mitigate the risks that stop everyday Americans from building their own. It will furthermore host entrepreneurship and skills workshops that those out of work over 6 months will be subscribed to.
Vlerchan hereby pledges to cut corporation taxation to 0%. The currently exorbitant levels hinder investment in the U.S.: suppress wage growth of the average workers and the value of our economies output as a whole. It's a reckless violation of economic prudence to tax those earning retained for reinvestment and it drives tens of thousands of American jobs overseas.
Capital gains taxation will be reduced on investments reporting medium-term (plus) gains. This is to incentivise the the big funds to engage in investments that will stick around long enough to benefit Americans. The financial crash was built on the short-term thinking that the Vlerchan administration seeks to eviscerate through measures such as the proposed.
Under the Vlerchan Plan there will be the closure of those loopholes that commonly benefit the very rich.
Finally the Vlerchan administration pledges to abolish the Federal minimum wage and grant that authority to the better-placed state's administrations.
The Vlerchan plan further realises the great scourge that poverty is for the American people and seeks to rectify it through both:
Expansion of the Earned-income tax credit. Unlike the minimum wage this can be targeted at our least well off - and does not negatively affect investment in their human capital.
Experimenting with reform. The Vlerchan administration plans to place contracts towards poverty-alleviation on tender to be offered to the lowest bidder. The contracts will contain targets and if the firm through it's operations meets these targets the government will pay-out. This will begin in a few select states before being expanded.
However the Vlerchan Plan recognises that out fiscal deficit is getting out of control and needs to be tamed. It pledges to commit to a number of measures to defeat this.
Vlerchan commits to a tiered progressive-consumption taxation system. The first 10,000 and 25,000 will be taxed at a rate of 7.5%: the next amount up to 50,000 will pay a rate of 18%: Tthe next amount up to 100,000 will pay a rate of 32%: That up to 500,000 will pay a rate of 43%: And that over 500,000 will pay a rate of 55%. There will further be a 85% tax on all Veblan goods. This is designed so not to target the virtuous frugality that has marked out great nation: those that save and engage in thrift will be rewarded.
In-line with this the Vlerchan plan commits to the gradual privatisation the nation's pension scheme: seeing it as both unsustainable and wasteful. This will put your savings into the hands of professional and well-incentivised managers as opposed to the bureaucrats of the current system. The government will further legislate that the firms that operate in this environment must meet high standards of transparency and maintain set reserves.
There will be a land-value tax introduced. This will incentivise those holding land to develop it - or sell-off. It will also neutralise the large housing rents that are contained in land and raise the price for the average consumer.
America never stopped being great. The government only got in the way.

The Vlerchan Plan is looking for the public's mandate to peal back the the layers of bureaucracy that have infiltrated our lives and pave the way for a free-er and more prosperous America. You - not me - should lead your life.

---

The Vlerchan Plan aims to reduce involvement in foreign wars whilst emphasising enduring linkages with our allies in Europe, the Middle East, and the Far East.
Your elected Vlerchan administration pledges to support those NATO-allies that seek to shield their own independence from Russia. Vlerchan will reinforce bases in Eastern Europe as a message to the Kremlin and is not afraid to enforce sanctions so that the people of the East might remain free.
Your Vlerchan administration will remain undeterred to do what needs to be done vis-a-vis an increasingly assertive China and increasingly reckless-looking North Korea. It will step-up freedom of navigation operations in the South China sea and attempt to bring the various parties to the table in order to resolve disputes surrounding territories. With the Far-East facing-up to being the defining theatre of our era the Vlerchan administration pledges to ensure that events are played out to the benefits of ourselves - our allies - and the wider world.
Vlerchan is of the opinion that events in the Middle East should be left to its local inhabitants to resolve. It pledges towards funding the fight against tyrannical terrorist groups such as ISIL but as events have shown the region is resilient to a top-down solution. With regards to the Middle East it pledges to support the proud Isreali people in their fight against reckless and immoral terrorism within their own borders.
The Vlerchan administration pledges to maintain Guantanamo Bay detention camp to the fear of terrorists across the globe. We will ensure that threats against our people are detained and the information extracted accordingly in benefit of our collective security.
The Vlerchan Plan pledges to pursue an immigration policy that makes our nation more competitive - but also stronger - in these challenging economic and geopolitical times.

Vlerchan sympathises with those forced North by terror and poverty. Nonetheless we must not forget that this is in breach of our laws of which our nation is built.
The Vlerchan administration will enforce all laws as currently in-place.
The Vlerchan administration will introduce new higher fines for businesses that hire illegally - being a proportion of revenue - and introduce compensation for whistleblowers that might enable their co-operation.
The Vlerchan administration intends to militarise the Southern border and will fund this through a 7.5% tax on remittances.
Vlerchan further pledges to up-end the demographics of immigrants arriving into the state.
The Vlerchan administration will set them minimum wage for those on H1A visas at 150% of the prevailing wage in that occupation.
The Vlerchan administration will restrict all H1B visas towards those that have been educated in U.S. universities. The Vlerchan administration further pledges to invest in STEM education so that H1B visas might become redundant inside the next decade.
The Vlerchan administration will introduce increased vetting procedures for those from high-risk countries.
With regards to refugees from the Middle East the Vlerchan feels believes that the whole world needs to play a role but this should not come up the cost of it's security. The Vlerchan administration pledges to take in 10,000 refugees. However these spots are reserved for families that have undergone the most stringiest of vetting.
Vlerchan believes that the American people are more than capable of accepting the tasks that immigrants have previously removed from them. He has never been anti-immigrant: but rather believes that immigrants should be imported to suit our needs: and never the other way around.

He promises to be as strong on internal security as he is on external.

[Soundtrack - Bufallo Springfield: For What It's Worth] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp5JCrSXkJY)

[sqishy]

Vlerchan promises to introduce a flat tax. Those earning above 50,000 per year will pay 18%. Those under pay nothing.


I question this on a mathematical basis (I'm fine with it otherwise). If one were to earn 50k a year and pay the 18% tax, then they earn less than another who earns 49k. I suggest that the tax rate goes from the 0% to 18% in such a way that those immediately under the threshold are not better off than those immediately above it.

[Vlerchan]

If one were to earn 50k a year and pay the 18% tax, then they earn less than another who earns 49k. I suggest that the tax rate goes from the 0% to 18% in such a way that those immediately under the threshold are not better off than those immediately above it.
My bad. I should have mentioned that was a marginal rate. So those earning above the threshold pay 18% on all income earned thereafter.

---

I'm also going to put up healthcare and education policies at some stage.

People can feel free to critique whatever part they want.

[dxcxdzv]

Vlerchan:
"Vlerchan commits to a tiered progressive-consumption taxation system. The first 10,000 and 25,000 will be taxed at a rate of 7.5%: the next amount up to 50,000 will pay a rate of 18%: Tthe next amount up to 100,000 will pay a rate of 32%: That up to 500,000 will pay a rate of 43%: And that over 500,000 will pay a rate of 55%."

How did you find those numbers?
And, perhaps I didn't read well but are you talking about taxing people randomly?

[phuckphace]

plan is missing a YUGE wall but I still upvoted

[Vlerchan]

How did you find those numbers?
Intuitively those numbers sound good. It's quite rough but I'm intending for more the idea to get across.

That does also mean I plucked them out of the air without making an effort to cost them. I prefer to think I'm just flexible though.

And, perhaps I didn't read well but are you talking about taxing people randomly?
No. I'm talking about introducing a sales tax (VAT) that varies dependent on annual earnings. So does that earn more will pay a larger proportion in sales tax.

It's preferable because it:
Doesn't discourage saving. This allows for a greater rate of investments and thus faster productivity and wage growth.
Doesn't act as a disincentive to work.
Provides an effective starting-point from which to stimulate demand.
In the long-run we'll see a lower consumption [weighted heavily against richer people] and higher investment economy.

lan is missing a YUGE wall but I still upvoted
I included broad anti-immigration components to shore up right-wing support.

What do you think of paying for border control through taxes on remittances - i.e. levies on being an immigrant. I'm pretty sure no-one is suggesting it because it seems unethical but I'm imagining if you're anti-immigration it seems great.

[phuckphace]

What do you think of paying for border control through taxes on remittances - i.e. levies on being an immigrant.

I say do it.

according to various Trumplets on Twitter, that's exactly how he plans to "make Mexico pay for it." every Walmart ever has a MoneyCenter where you can wire your under-the-table paycheck back to la familia in Jalisco for a fee, which could always be turned into a revenue tax for the above purpose. even if there's no wall, it's a good idea nevertheless - a way to tax funds that would otherwise go untaxed.

[dxcxdzv]

You want to make the VAT dependent of the consumer's earning?
Doesn't it sound like extremely complicated to put in place? In the VAT there is a story of taxing the consumer, but the company as well.
I mean, how do you manage to do that? People will have to keep all bills and ask a refund (or the contrary) to the State or something like that?

"The Vlerchan administration intends to militarise the Southern border and will fund this through a 7.5% tax on remittances."
Why?

[Vlerchan]

In the VAT there is a story of taxing the consumer, but the company as
well.
I'll add first that the tax is levied on consumers and will act on firms through difference preference structures (demand).

It will without a doubt distort production patterns. I'm not sure to what extent though given the manner in which the taxation levels are intended to match the various propensities to consumer I'm not expecting too much. Nonetheless I feel the the spread of change will bring about net welfare gains.

I there any specific issue you have?

I mean, how do you manage to do that? People will have to keep all bills and ask a refund (or the contrary) to the State or something like that?
The state already keeps account of people's earnings. It wouldn't involve much to then keep account of people's savings. The differential is then taxed.

Why? [militarise the Southern border]
Ensure that the law is upheld. The last 20 years are indicating that we'll need to take a much harder stance.

---

In all honesty I'm not too keen on militarisation. It's there to prompt policy discussion more than anything.

[dxcxdzv]

No issue with anything. But what you say needs a deep study to be applicated, I mean, there are not enough numbers and A+B demonstrations. I ain't like being unsure.

And how would you precisely put that in place? Register all sales and purchases (transactions from both consumer's and seller's sides therefore). Trough bank cards ok, why not it just needs banks' cooperation but what about cash transactions?

"Ensure that the law is upheld. The last 20 years are indicating that we'll need to take a much harder stance."
Why army and not police? Do you have a source for those 20 years or at least something I can rely on as I'm not particularly aware of the Southern border situation?

I personally consider that a huge part of what is called the army is a waste of money, although it's useful to a certain extent.

[Vlerchan]

But what you say needs a deep study to be applicated, I mean, there are not enough numbers and A+B demonstrations.
There's a number of European states which have differentiated sales taxes on certain goods and services - such as basic foodstuffs. I have never come across a paper but I imagine right there is a place to start. It lead to poorer people paying a smaller average rate of sales taxation.

I'm working off the theoretic material here. We have a good idea of the manner in which consumers respond to tax incentives.

And how would you precisely put that in place? Register all sales and purchases (transactions from both consumer's and seller's sides therefore). Trough bank cards ok, why not it just needs banks' cooperation but what about cash transactions?
It wouldn't need to be close to that complicated.

The government keeps track of the income that enters an account. You then need to include measures so that the government can also keep track of savings [not difficult]. There would be no need for the government to keep account of individual transactions. It would - at the end of each period - just subtract what remained [savings] from the original figure that had entered the account [income]. The difference [consumption: expenditure] would be taxable.

It wouldn't matter - for tax purposes - if people paid through cash so long as the change was deposited back into the account.

Why army and not police?
Well I'd prefer a dedicated border force that is militarised.

Do you have a source for those 20 years or at least something I can rely on as I'm not particularly aware of the Southern border situation?
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/07/FT_15.07.23_UnauthImmigrants.png

It's declining at the moment as immigrants face poorer economic prospects and self-deport and as the Obama administration steps up deportation efforts. Nonetheless - the same fundamental structure that agve rise to a 350% increase in the numbers of illegal immigrants in the U.S. persists.

[northy]

So basically, your plan is to tax everything. Except corporations. The land tax for instance is a stupid idea, people won't buy land if they have to pay tax to hold it. How will farmers, who make little money as it is, be a able to afford that?

[Vlerchan]

So basically, your plan is to tax everything.
Hardly. Other than introducing a Land-value tax I'm just shifting the tax burden to less distortion-inducing sources.

Except corporations.
The incidence of taxation doesn't fall on corporations. It's just a particularly costly way of taxing labour incomes.

https://www.kansascityfed.org/Publicat/RegionalRWP/RRWP07-01.pdf

The land tax for instance is a stupid idea, people won't buy land if they have to pay tax to hold it.
Exactly the point. Holding land and not improving it is incredibly costly for everyone else.

The point of taxing land is that it neutralises the rents that occur from location: which is what land prices are broadly reflective of.

How will farmers, who make little money as it is, be a able to afford that?
Worst case scenario is the least productive farmers sell it on to the most productive farmers. Looking at the Irish agricultural sector that's what needs to happen.

You could also have an exemption for agricultural land and then phase-in an actual tax so that the impact on their livelihoods is lagged. Though at the moment - in the U.S. - most household income in farming households is derived from non-farming activities (>90%) (https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40152.pdf). You have >20% of farms producing ~90% of output.

Worst of all the U.S. pays out 20 billion in farming subsidies each year (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21643191-crop-prices-fall-farmers-grow-subsidies-instead-milking-taxpayers). Millions of this directly into waste. It occurs largely to the detriment of citizens in developing countries that get priced out of world markets.

I find that inexcusable. And whilst I sympathise with farming communities it's time to stop pretending we didn't become developed countries more than half a century ago.

---

The biggest benefit - btw - is that it neutralises housing rents and urban-construction rents without distorting market outcomes.

[dxcxdzv]

mmh, I see, armed forces never discouraged immigration though.
'Guess the only real effect except a new tax would be: [I]"I included broad anti-immigration components to shore up right-wing support."

About that tax on land, this is pretty much Smith.
And what would that least productive farmer do after that? Wouldn't this cause a lot of social issues?
Furthermore wouldn't this just kill small farms which represent 90% of US farms and ~22% of the production (USDA)?
The fact that this kind of farms has 90% of their income that is from off-farming doesn't mean they could easily handle a tax on land property.
Instead of a land tax for everyone I guess a tax only for non-productive lands (which therefore excludes farming lands) or a modulated tax based on the income (instead of an exemption, I assume you were talking about for the current year of taxation) would be better and not that difficult to put in place. As you said, you're flexible.

[northy]

Hardly. Other than introducing a Land-value tax I'm just shifting the tax burden to less distortion-inducing sources. I think that corporation tax is important. Although, removing it would attract large MNCs towards America.[/QUOTE]


You could also have an exemption for agricultural land and then phase-in an actual tax so that the impact on their livelihoods is lagged. Though at the moment - in the U.S. - most household income in farming households is derived from non-farming activities (>90%) (https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40152.pdf). You have >20% of farms producing ~90% of output. Fair Point

And whilst I sympathise with farming communities it's time to stop pretending we didn't become developed countries more than half a century ago.
Ah yes, because you should just ignore the whole market of organic home grown foods that people like.

[Vlerchan]

mmh, I see, armed forces never discouraged [illegal] immigration though.
I would appreciate a source for this. Thank you.

About that tax on land, this is pretty much Smith.
I had more Henry George in mind. Nonetheless it holds broad support across the modern economic profession.

And what would that least productive farmer do after that? Wouldn't this cause a lot of social issues?
I would hope that less productive farmers would sell their land and use the proceeds to fund education. Nonetheless I wouldn't be against adjustment grants or other such programmes in the case the transformation is expected to be rapid.

I'm sure is would result in social discontent - You can see the beginnings of it in Ireland. That's what makes me more inclined towards a phasing in of the measure. But economic development has always resulted in some sectional interest losing out: I'd just rather it happened before we pumped even more cash after a lost cause. The fact that the beneficiaries are a number if superlarge farms compounds this for me.

Furthermore wouldn't this just kill small farms which represent 90% of US farms and ~22% of the production (USDA)?
If small farms get wiped out then the larger more-productive farms will soak up their market-share. So long as measures are in place to aid adjustment of the losers it shouldn't be an issue.

The fact that this kind of farms has 90% of their income that is from off-farming doesn't mean they could easily handle a tax on land property.
It does mean that the likelihood is that it would be almost no worse off selling the farm - and I imagine a lot better of seeing as farming is a huge time-investment.

[...] I guess a tax only for non-productive lands [...]
Define: "unproductive" and then we can start considering what a huge administrative burden that would be.

[...] or a modulated tax based on the income [...]
This is more or less another income tax and I don't feel like we need a second one.

I think that corporation tax is important.
Is there a reason for this.

---

Like I argued in the last post corporations don't bare the incidence of this taxation: it gets past through to workers. If we want to target the best-off in our societies there's much better means of doing it.

Although, removing it would attract large MNCs towards America.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement

Big MNCs are smart enough that those that could were paying the absolute minimum as-is. Ireland's GNP is overvalued about ~8% because of all the foreign-made profits that travel through our accounts.

Ah yes, because you should just ignore the whole market of organic home grown foods that people like.
I do look quite radical until that statement is qualified with the first sentence in that entire section. You ignored that sentence for some reason.

If there's demand for organic farming to develop then I have no issue with it developing. That's - in fact - where I see Western farming heading.

---

I should add though that it's some big producers dominating organic farming markets (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/business/organic-food-purists-worry-about-big-companies-influence.html?referer=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/) too. Whilst most farms are quite small these are also the least productive.

I'll need to go searching for market share figures. I had them before but I can't remember where.

[ImCoolBeans]

:usflag:Vlerchan 2016:usflag:

I'm going to vote for Vlerchan as a write in :P

[Porpoise101]

Hmmm I agree in general with your plan except a few things. I recommend this:

Increased taxation on capital gains in general and (at least a temporary) estate tax to reduce wealth hoarding

Discontinuation of 'enhanced interrogation' at Gitmo

Strengthened environmental regulations

Creating a refugee program for Mexicans (as they are in some cases)

Heavy reinvestment into American infrastructure

Also, if you want to give large-scale farms control of our food, we need to really tighten down those industries so they do not get too powerful.

[Vlerchan]

Increased taxation on capital gains in general[.]
Is there a reason for this?

Whilst I realise that capital gains taxation tends to target the 0.1% - where over half the revenue comes from - investment itself is highly elastic to changes in the taxation rate.

I remember with Bernies plan his capital gains hikes were expected to take in just a fifth of what a static analysis would indicate.

Discontinuation of 'enhanced interrogation' at Gitmo.
Honestly don't have an issue with this at all. Just half of the U.S. does and I designed this programme to be a vote-winner.

Strengthened environmental regulations.
Not until we're sure that other states will precede along the same lines. There's massive incentives for all state's to hold off in all circumstances and for the first

In terms of investment though I'd be quite willing to pump it into green technologies.

Creating a refugee program for Mexicans (as they are in some cases)
Unsure about this.

Heavy reinvestment into American infrastructure.
It really depends on where I stand with the budget here. I remember reading a paper indicating that there'd be good returns on infrastructural investment though.

Also, if you want to give large-scale farms control of our food, we need to really tighten down those industries so they do not get too powerful.
In what way exactly.

[Porpoise101]

In what way exactly.
I would create stricter health standards and additional protections for farmers so that they can't get trapped by biotech companies. Currently the FDA is heavily lobbied by the food industry, so I would try to find a way to at least equalise their influence with nutritionists, farmers, and scientists on important platforms like the Science Board. Personally I think a collective of experts would yield good policy ideas and results.

When I was referring to the environmental regulations I should have been more clear. We should be protecting our bodies of water more, as freshwater is becoming more scarce and aquifer abuse is rampant. In the sea, fish stocks are overfished. I propose encouraging water-efficient farming and lessening home water use. For the oceans, we should increase oceanic preserves as studies show (pelagic and local) fish stocks increase dramatically with more reserve territory.

[Vlerchan]

I would create stricter health standards and additional protections for farmers so that they can't get trapped by biotech companies.
In Europe producers need to demonstrate that healthiness of their product before it can be marketed. Would that be suitable?

Personally I think a collective of experts would yield good policy ideas and results.
I generally want to make boards as technocratic as possible. I can agree here.

[Porpoise101]

In Europe producers need to demonstrate that healthiness of their product before it can be marketed. Would that be suitable?


I generally want to make boards as technocratic as possible. I can agree here.
I feel that is good enough.

[phuckphace]

Vlerchan

would you support something like the Sherman Act targeted at large oligopolies such as Walmart and Comcast?

the problems caused by Walmart are self-explanatory I think, but our ISP market is sadly dominated by a few heavy-hitters who charge exorbitant rates for Internet service of quality ranging from "OK" to "terrible." Comcast in particular has been throttling data usage to prevent competition with its cable TV service from streaming services such as Netflix and Hulu. most markets are dominated by only one large provider, leaving customers with no other alternative and the free market unable to work its invisible-handed magic.

I'm envisioning Walmart, Verizon, Comcast etc. etc. all broken up into smaller independent companies just like Standard Oil and Ma Bell, but with additional safeguards in place to prevent oligopolies or regional monopolies from reforming (ironically, Verizon is a descendant of the Ma Bell breakup, and Comcast might be as well but I'm not sure).

[Vlerchan]

the problems caused by Walmart are self-explanatory I think[.]
I'm not familiar at all with the market in groceries in the United States.

I understand that Walmart is big and provides goods quite cheap and that's about it.

but our ISP market is sadly dominated by a few heavy-hitters who charge exorbitant rates for Internet service of quality ranging from "OK" to "terrible."
I understand this one a bit better.

The big problem as I see it is that when it comes to infrastructure there's colossal start-up costs and huge complimenting uncertainties about return. The regional monopolies are built up around that. You could split up firms - who'd need to be assigned pieces of the infrastructure - but that would perpetuate the same issue.

You could write it into law that the owners of infrastructure need to lease it - like occurred before the introduction of the Telecommunications Act in 1996 - but the likelihood is that leasing-price would need to be balanced against a loss of market-share and that wouldn't help.

The manner in which I see it working is that the federal governments invests in open-access middle-man cable and there's a significant reduction in costs then for new entrants that can finish building to the house-door. If there's structural issues in the market then designating that competition occurs is going to last as long as there's sufficient political capital. It's the elimination of these structural issues that should be prioritised.

[dxcxdzv]

I would appreciate a source for this. Thank you.
My formulation was pretty bad, I apologize.
First I can't deny such a measure would effectively reduce the number of illegal migrants, what I'm pointing out is that it'll be far from stopping the problem for the sole reason that the presence of an armed force would never eradicate the issue of illegal migration. People will always want to go somewhere and that's something that locking frontiers would never resolve, that's one of the reasons why Trump's wall idea is fucked up.
It is even difficult for me to conceptualize an "illegal" migration.

Define: "unproductive" and then we can start considering what a huge administrative burden that would be.
That doesn't create value added, or at least doesn't permit to create it. This is more or less rejoining your idea of non-improved land.

Eeeh, sorry bra, 'still voting Frank Underwood 16".

[Alien djinn]

Wow dude, do you study economics or something ? xD Sorry I couldn't read you entirely. What a brain x)

[Vlerchan]

First I can't deny such a measure would effectively reduce the number of illegal migrants, what I'm pointing out is that it'll be far from stopping the problem for the sole reason that the presence of an armed force would never eradicate the issue of illegal migration.
Yes. It without a doubt won't stop people wanting to relocate to the U.S.: But the fact of the matter is that the electorate doesn't feel that the United States should be considered responsible for the unfortunalities of these people.

Militarising our gaurd won't eradicate the issue. But nonetheless it would serve to strengthen the interests of the nation - as called through the electoral order - and be a first step in confronting the issue with the steel required.

That doesn't create value added, or at least doesn't permit to create it.
Land doesn't create value. The interaction of capital and labour with land does. I don't intend to tax the improvements to land borne through this process. I'll explain the reasons I feel it should be taxed nonetheless:

It's value is reflective of the public goods surrounding it. Extracting the value added as a result of communal effort is returning to communities the value of their own production. You can consider the tax a maintenance charge.
It doesn't distort economic decision-making - Except that to sell to a more productive individual. Land can't be withdrawn - i.e. it's of fixed-supply.
It's a non-cyclical (stable) source of revenue.

The middle one - for me - is the most important.

Wow dude, do you study economics or something ?

[...] What a brain x)
Yep. Going into final year.

And thank you.