4 ms·
This dead horse has been well-beaten in countless libertarian-friendly discussion forums. "How will you pay for the roads?" has been posed to libertarians as a
by logfromblammo 10y ago
This dead horse has been well-beaten in countless libertarian-friendly discussion forums.
"How will you pay for the roads?" has been posed to libertarians as a rhetorical question so frequently that it is now a warning flag that means your discussion counterpart has never bothered researching the opposing position even one iota before judging against it.
Generally speaking, the problem with this variety of debate is that the unstated premises of the opposing positions are completely irreconcilable.
A large fraction of all libertarians believe that taxation is not necessary to provide vital services usually provided by governments, and that any service that cannot be supported by any means other than taxation is, by definition, not necessary to provide at all.
Beyond that large problem with your post, I should also mention some anecdotes. My electricity, water, and garbage removal are provided by private businesses. I have no natural gas service. My local public schools are cash strapped, because one of the two counties that the school district spans won't transfer an appropriate portion of their property taxes to the school district. The local police engage in enforcement-for-profit. The town I lived in previously had a volunteer fire department with facilities and equipment paid for largely by private donations and fundraisers. One of the roads I drive on daily has been a construction zone for more than two continuous years, just so that the city can install a sidewalk to nowhere.
Besides that, property does not attend public school. Children attend school, and the number of children per hectare is not a fixed ratio. The unmetered, non-utility services that governments actually do provide are largely dependent on absolute population size and population density, not on acreage. I would think that a capitation would be more appropriate, but capitations are usually considered regressive taxes, and disproportionately burdensome to the poor. You don't provide services to property, but to the people that live on it. Why not just tax the people directly?
- twblalock 10y ago> "How will you pay for the roads?" has been posed to libertarians as a rhetorical question so frequently that it is now a warning flag that means your discussion counterpart has never bothered researching the opposing position even one iota before judging against it. I'm familiar with the libertarian arguments. There is no need for me to mention them every time I make an argument of my own. Omission does not imply ignorance -- I know the libertarian arguments, but I just don't take them seriously enough to mention them every time I talk about taxes.
- logfromblammo 10y agoParaphrasing this thread: seibelj: Corporate taxes are regressive. Roboprog: Stop taxing income. Tax property and imports. RUG3Y: Flat tax, because property tax is evil. twblalock: Property deserves to be taxed, because gov't services. logfromblammo: Gov't services are not sufficient justification for any tax. See also: every libertarian ever. twblalock: I have already rejected libertarian arguments. Then why bother responding at all? I, like RUG3Y, think that levying taxes based on the value of owned property is worse than other methods of taxation, particularly when failure to pay the tax may lead to seizure of the property. The fact is that property does not enjoy the benefit of government-provided services. People do. So you tax the people, in proportion to the cost of providing them with those services, not in proportion to how much their house is worth, as it is a poor proxy for the former. Just as the Window Tax led people to wall themselves off from natural sunlight, property tax discourages people from purchasing and improving property for the long term. Also, property tax just feels like a protection racket shakedown to me. "Nice lawn. It'd be a shame if someone took it from you and sold it just because you didn't pay me to not do exactly that." It's one of the reasons why I can't stand Georgists/geoists: property taxation is one of their foundation stones. Edit (rate-limited): If the cost of a road does not scale to the number of users, please explain why a single-lane gravel road costs the same as a 6-lane elevated highway. Sparsely populated areas get reduced services. One guy living in the middle of a 16 sq.mi. ranch does not get city water and a sewer connection. He digs his own well and uses a septic field. He doesn't get fiber to the home; he uses a satellite dish. On the other side, city dwellers get city services because they live at high density, and it is therefore cost effective to do so.
- twblalock 10y ago> The fact is that property does not enjoy the benefit of government-provided services. People do. The cost of building a road to a given property, building infrastructure for electrical and sewage services, etc., is not dependent on the number of people living in the property, nor on their incomes. It is dependent on the location and size of the property itself.
- Retric 10y ago"That's a well known problem... moving on" suggests there are no good answers. The simple truth is libertarian ideas have been tried in the real world several times and don't work.
- logfromblammo 10y agoThat is true. It is also true that statist ideas have been tried in the real world countless times, and also don't work. There are no good answers. There are only good enough for now answers. Property tax is good enough for now. It will not be abolished until something better comes along to displace it.
- RUG3Y 10y agoYour response is cogent and well argued. You've taken the time to say what I should have, but these conversations quickly become circle-jerks.