3 ms·

Forcing someone to sell because you find their life choices economically inefficient is gross morally. Further, it creates a legal and financial risk in the en

Forcing someone to sell because you find their life choices economically inefficient is gross morally. Further, it creates a legal and financial risk in the entire system where property becomes subject to the whims of whatever governing authority therefore discouraging investment and real ownership. The Kelo decision was despicable, let's not encourage it.

roenxi 7y ago
Welcome to taxes. You could have had something, then the government says you can't and you have to live a different lifestyle. All the options here are morally gross and it is easy to justify either side. If land values have truly doubled in 8 years it isn't like the family involved is out of pocket. They've made a small fortune. The idea they can make a small fortune and prevent land from being used is also morally gross. The only justification is that a large hurt is diffuse where the small hurt would be concentrated. That is a defensible philosophy but it is also one where eventually everyone is worse off. And it isn't like this is an erosion of property rights; they are being taxed on benefits that they are not responsible for creating. 1.5% land tax so people have to re-buy the land once a generation is as good an idea in tax law as any I've seen. I agree that having to change a lifestyle because of taxation is pretty awful and the system should strive not to do it. But I've visited places like Hong Kong and seen the density of living there. We're talking an order of magnitude more people. The number of people who come out ahead from that sort of property development is so overwhelming we can't process it using intuition and positive stories about individuals.
- AdrianB1 7y ago
  No, they did not made a small fortune, unless getting a pile of papers for the home your family build and owned for decades or centuries can be called "a small fortune". If you want your house, not that paper, what is the option? Why should you be forced to sell and leave, just because someone figured your land is worth more without you there? I am never happy seeing that the same mindset that killed the north American natives to take their lands is still there. You don't use a gun, but taxes and racketeering to move people out, so you take their land and do what you think it's best - FOR YOU. This is a form of genocide, you know?
aianus 7y ago
You don't have to be forced to sell. You could live in it until you die at which point the sale is forced and the taxes are paid. This can be done by borrowing against the house from a financial institution or we can have the government place just place liens on the property if you can't pay.

roenxi 7y ago

Welcome to taxes. You could have had something, then the government says you can't and you have to live a different lifestyle. All the options here are morally gross and it is easy to justify either side. If land values have truly doubled in 8 years it isn't like the family involved is out of pocket. They've made a small fortune. The idea they can make a small fortune and prevent land from being used is also morally gross. The only justification is that a large hurt is diffuse where the small hurt would be concentrated. That is a defensible philosophy but it is also one where eventually everyone is worse off. And it isn't like this is an erosion of property rights; they are being taxed on benefits that they are not responsible for creating. 1.5% land tax so people have to re-buy the land once a generation is as good an idea in tax law as any I've seen. I agree that having to change a lifestyle because of taxation is pretty awful and the system should strive not to do it. But I've visited places like Hong Kong and seen the density of living there. We're talking an order of magnitude more people. The number of people who come out ahead from that sort of property development is so overwhelming we can't process it using intuition and positive stories about individuals.

AdrianB1 7y ago
No, they did not made a small fortune, unless getting a pile of papers for the home your family build and owned for decades or centuries can be called "a small fortune". If you want your house, not that paper, what is the option? Why should you be forced to sell and leave, just because someone figured your land is worth more without you there? I am never happy seeing that the same mindset that killed the north American natives to take their lands is still there. You don't use a gun, but taxes and racketeering to move people out, so you take their land and do what you think it's best - FOR YOU. This is a form of genocide, you know?

aianus 7y ago

You don't have to be forced to sell. You could live in it until you die at which point the sale is forced and the taxes are paid. This can be done by borrowing against the house from a financial institution or we can have the government place just place liens on the property if you can't pay.