3 ms·

And I’m opposed to the argument that the current distribution of property is somehow more just or fair than one that results afterwards from a change in tax pol

by TimPC 4y ago

And I’m opposed to the argument that the current distribution of property is somehow more just or fair than one that results afterwards from a change in tax policy. Currently, suburbs are massively subsidized by big cities and without those subsidies taxes in suburbs would roughly double to pay for infrastructure (higher increases in poorer neighbourhoods where the tax base is smaller). You assume the resultant communities from all these subsidies are morally neutral and have strong rights to exist unchanged. Cities have a right to take back the tax dollars that are unfairly siphoned to suburbs and the resultant change in taxes would be just as disruptive to the community as anything being proposed. Georgism has a better moral basis than suburbanization. It’s possible to come up with a moral theory that justifies LVT and philosophers have done so. No philosopher has found a consistent moral theory to justify taking money from poor apartment dwellers and using it to pay for well-off suburbs. The current communities that exist are created through injustice and it’s unreasonable to demand they continue to exist unchanged when doing so requires perpetuating that injustice.

teakettle42 4y ago
This is a really long-winded way to say “it’s moral to force people out of their homes, destroy people’s communities, and ruinously tax them, all for not living the way I want them to.” The fair allocation of a shared pool of taxes is a different question from LVT entirely.
- TimPC 4y ago
  You completely ignored the point. Communities exist currently based on various injustices. You can't correct the injustice without having some impact on who's in the community. You've argued that forcing anyone out of a community is a greater injustice than fixing any injustice in how that community operates. Your philosophy is a weird sort of artificial elevation of the status quo. It's almost like you believe moral good is lack of change and everything should remain constant all the time. I on the other hand believe progress is a good thing, even when it requires some change and even when not all of that change is a-priori beneficial to those affected by it. Your notions of what constitutes ruinous taxation is laughable since even a 100% LVT is set to the economic rent of the land. This can be expensive but it's certainly not ruinous since by definition the land can actually produce this value. I could also characterize your position as a weird sort of worship of income tax. I could satirize your weak beliefs in bodily autonomy since you think so highly of the government interfering in labour contracts and taking income. This expression would result in equally damning statements akin to the moral outrage you have produced rather than addressing my argument. But it wouldn't be substantive debate, just like your current low-brow cheap-shots aren't.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    For all your window dressing, you want to destroy communities, force people out of their homes, and coerce adherence to your viewpoint on how people should live. Whatever injustice you think you’d be correcting, the one you’d be promulgating would be just as immoral. You pretend to lofty ideals because you cannot actually justify the real human costs incurred by your desired form of government social engineering.

by TimPC 4y ago

teakettle42 4y ago

This is a really long-winded way to say “it’s moral to force people out of their homes, destroy people’s communities, and ruinously tax them, all for not living the way I want them to.” The fair allocation of a shared pool of taxes is a different question from LVT entirely.

TimPC 4y ago
You completely ignored the point. Communities exist currently based on various injustices. You can't correct the injustice without having some impact on who's in the community. You've argued that forcing anyone out of a community is a greater injustice than fixing any injustice in how that community operates. Your philosophy is a weird sort of artificial elevation of the status quo. It's almost like you believe moral good is lack of change and everything should remain constant all the time. I on the other hand believe progress is a good thing, even when it requires some change and even when not all of that change is a-priori beneficial to those affected by it. Your notions of what constitutes ruinous taxation is laughable since even a 100% LVT is set to the economic rent of the land. This can be expensive but it's certainly not ruinous since by definition the land can actually produce this value. I could also characterize your position as a weird sort of worship of income tax. I could satirize your weak beliefs in bodily autonomy since you think so highly of the government interfering in labour contracts and taking income. This expression would result in equally damning statements akin to the moral outrage you have produced rather than addressing my argument. But it wouldn't be substantive debate, just like your current low-brow cheap-shots aren't.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  For all your window dressing, you want to destroy communities, force people out of their homes, and coerce adherence to your viewpoint on how people should live. Whatever injustice you think you’d be correcting, the one you’d be promulgating would be just as immoral. You pretend to lofty ideals because you cannot actually justify the real human costs incurred by your desired form of government social engineering.