Income taxes are transfer taxes: The government takes a cut of money moving from a labor buyer to a labor seller. Not unlike excise taxes or tariffs, though we needed a Constitutional amendment for Congress to do it.
Property taxes are property taxes. They’re premised on the notion that there’s a private owner of the property to be taxed, and those taxes fund services and protections via the elected government of the property holder.
If LVT requires rent-equivalent rates to work, you can call it a really high property tax, but that’s just linguistic games: The government is charging rent on property it now effectively owns.
What part of that do you disagree with? I took your comments to imply yes, in fact, under LVT the government effectively owns the land and charges rent on it, as it was in feudal times and perhaps should have continued to be so?
> If LVT requires rent-equivalent rates to work, you can call it a really high property tax, but that’s just linguistic games: The government is charging rent on property it now effectively owns.
In nature, might makes right. Whether you fight against someone else to protect your property, or pay a gang to not disturb you, or pay a democratically elected government to not have the sheriff’s department to remove you.
The concept of ownership and titles is very fluid depending on the situation, but what isn’t is the idea of paying for what you use. High earned income tax and low flat land value tax rates incentivize the opposite of a productive society. I would say it is more feudal than paying the government rent.
This does not seem incongruent with the idea that everyone is renting the land. The important point is the government can take it and sell it to someone who will do something productive with it.
Income taxes are transfer taxes: The government takes a cut of money moving from a labor buyer to a labor seller. Not unlike excise taxes or tariffs, though we needed a Constitutional amendment for Congress to do it.
Property taxes are property taxes. They’re premised on the notion that there’s a private owner of the property to be taxed, and those taxes fund services and protections via the elected government of the property holder.
If LVT requires rent-equivalent rates to work, you can call it a really high property tax, but that’s just linguistic games: The government is charging rent on property it now effectively owns.
What part of that do you disagree with? I took your comments to imply yes, in fact, under LVT the government effectively owns the land and charges rent on it, as it was in feudal times and perhaps should have continued to be so?
(Also, re: property taxes and takings, check out Tyler v. Hennepin. 9-0. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/22-166)