What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[mczerone]

Who values the land? Isn't value subjective? Couldn't I make a profit from "unimproved" land, and couldn't I lose money by improving my land?

And if I improved my own homesteaded land, why do govt cronies get to take a cut of my efforts? Did they come and build irrigation channels and lay a cement foundation? If I didn't ask them to help in any way, where do they get off trying to create a duty for me to pay them?

[tremendoustie]

What makes it your land?

I would say having purchased it via voluntary agreement constitutes legitimate ownership, regardless of whether whoever owned it 300 years ago acquired it legitimately.


Obviously we can't fix all wrongdoing through history. Actually though, I'd even say the same thing on a shorter timescale. If you steal a TV set, then sell it to me (in a manner that would not lead a reasonable person to suspect that it's stolen), I think you're liable for the value of the TV set, to the victim of your theft, but I'm not obligated to simply give it back.

Of course, homesteading is a legitimate way to acquire land also, but it's not so common these days.

[erowe1]

I agree that most of the original land grants were illegitimate. However, it's not possible to correct all of the grievances of history, and I certainly don't see how taxing people's property has anything to do with justice at all.

It's best just to work for freedom starting now. Land ownership will balance out over time, and revert to those who really produce things their neighbors need, if the government is not there to prop up their corrupt buddies.

I would support opening up national forest to reasonable homesteading.

I agree that we shouldn't try to correct those past injustices. But I also don't think that methods of taxation and lack of available homestead land are entirely unrelated. I got the idea from Jefferson, who said it better than I could.
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl41.htm

But again, none of this is to defend any tax over no taxes at all, just one tax versus another.

Edit: I guess that letter is kind of long. Here's the money quote:

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation.

[erowe1]

I would say having purchased it via voluntary agreement constitutes legitimate ownership, regardless of whether whoever owned it 300 years ago acquired it legitimately.

Practically, this might be the best way to go. But if I sell you the Brooklyn Bridge through voluntary agreement, that wouldn't make it rightfully yours, since it's not mine to sell.

[Krugerrand]

Practically, this might be the best way to go. But if I sell you the Brooklyn Bridge through voluntary agreement, that wouldn't make it rightfully yours, since it's not mine to sell.

How much do you want for it? j/k

The more I think about, the more I like poll taxes. If you want a government, when you vote is a great place to pony up.

[erowe1]

How much do you want for it? j/k

The more I think about, the more I like poll taxes. If you want a government, when you vote is a great place to pony up.

Actually, that's a good point. I forgot how much I preferred poll taxes to others. Being able to get out of taxes just by not voting, and letting those who pay taxes be the ones who vote on the representatives who decide how their own money gets spent, is probably as fair as any tax could be.

[loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by erowe1 What makes it your land?
The title of ownership does.

technically unless you have an allodial title you do not own the land.

[Dr.3D]

technically unless you have an allodial title you do not own the land.

Well, judging from history, technically, those who have the ability to defend the land from being taken from them own it.

[tremendoustie]

Actually, that's a good point. I forgot how much I preferred poll taxes to others. Being able to get out of taxes just by not voting, and letting those who pay taxes be the ones who vote on the representatives who decide how their own money gets spent, is probably as fair as any tax could be.

It's so fair, it could hardly be called a tax . More like a fee.

Of course, this only works if the government doesn't start trying to run the lives and property of people who didn't vote/consent ...

[tremendoustie]

Practically, this might be the best way to go. But if I sell you the Brooklyn Bridge through voluntary agreement, that wouldn't make it rightfully yours, since it's not mine to sell.

That's certainly true. Brooklyn bridge is a bit different from a TV set, because physical possession is less practical -- also, the bridge is currently controlled by the government.

That said, suppose some private individual built Brooklyn bridge, but you, as the biggest baddest guy in NY (perhaps the government), manage to send men over to take it over and start charging tolls. A couple months later, I show up as a rich immigrant in NY, with no clue about this history. You then "sell" it to me for a fair price.

I'd say you owe the original builder of the bridge full damages, but I get to keep the bridge. Alternately, you might return the money to me (along with extra $ for the inconvenience), and I return the bridge to the original owner.

Regardless, I do have a legitimate claim on the property at that point. Simply taking it from me and giving it back to the original victim of the theft would not be justice.