3 ms·

At the levels where an LVT is effectively coercive, it’s functionally indistinguishable from rent paid to the government for land you don’t actually own. I exp

At the levels where an LVT is effectively coercive, it’s functionally indistinguishable from rent paid to the government for land you don’t actually own. I expect most citizens would recognize this and any effective LVT would be politically DOA.

travisathougies 4y ago
I mean property tax is already rent.
- twoodfin 4y ago
  Property tax is rent like a condo fee is rent: It at least approximates a (progressively, in most tax schemes) assessed user fee for community services. The size of the fee is proportional to services rendered. The LVT as envisioned by its advocates isn’t like that. It’s a fee—largely determined by market forces—to continue to occupy and make use of “your” land. If the government can insist you pay some market-set cost to remain on a plot of land, you don’t own it in the way we classically think about land title ownership. You’re not the market participant, the government is.
tomjakubowski 4y ago
> At the levels where an LVT is effectively coercive, it’s functionally indistinguishable from rent paid to the government for land you don’t actually own. I don't see how this follows. Would you mind explaining?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
patrick451 4y ago
The fact that property taxes exist at all, combined with the fact that failure to pay property taxes means the government takes "your" land means you are in fact renting the land from the government. The size of these taxes is irrelevant.
- twoodfin 4y ago
  I invite you to make that sale to the American voter. My point is that Americans who own one or more plots of land definitely do NOT believe they are renting that land from the government. Ownership is, of course, a degree of control and everything is a matter of degree. Meaningful LVT would be a qualitative change in a home- or farm- or business-owner’s degree of control over what they heretofore considered their property, and they’d recognize that.
  - patrick451 4y ago
    To be clear, my position is that property taxes should not exist at all. An LVT would be doubling down on an already immoral tax. Whether it's pennies or 50% of the land's value, that still makes it the King's land, which I find abhorrent.

travisathougies 4y ago

I mean property tax is already rent.

twoodfin 4y ago
Property tax is rent like a condo fee is rent: It at least approximates a (progressively, in most tax schemes) assessed user fee for community services. The size of the fee is proportional to services rendered. The LVT as envisioned by its advocates isn’t like that. It’s a fee—largely determined by market forces—to continue to occupy and make use of “your” land. If the government can insist you pay some market-set cost to remain on a plot of land, you don’t own it in the way we classically think about land title ownership. You’re not the market participant, the government is.

tomjakubowski 4y ago

> At the levels where an LVT is effectively coercive, it’s functionally indistinguishable from rent paid to the government for land you don’t actually own. I don't see how this follows. Would you mind explaining?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

patrick451 4y ago

The fact that property taxes exist at all, combined with the fact that failure to pay property taxes means the government takes "your" land means you are in fact renting the land from the government. The size of these taxes is irrelevant.

twoodfin 4y ago
I invite you to make that sale to the American voter. My point is that Americans who own one or more plots of land definitely do NOT believe they are renting that land from the government. Ownership is, of course, a degree of control and everything is a matter of degree. Meaningful LVT would be a qualitative change in a home- or farm- or business-owner’s degree of control over what they heretofore considered their property, and they’d recognize that.
- patrick451 4y ago
  To be clear, my position is that property taxes should not exist at all. An LVT would be doubling down on an already immoral tax. Whether it's pennies or 50% of the land's value, that still makes it the King's land, which I find abhorrent.