eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) (01/24/85)
> >the Indians had no concept that you could restrict another's liberty > >to use or roam the land by claiming something called "ownership". > >Why should ANYONE be able to claim they own the land? > > tim sevener whuxl!orb > > By that logic, Mr. Sevener, how can *you* claim to own the > clothes that you are (presumably :-)) wearing? After all, > that claim restricts the freedom of others to wear them... > > Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" The difference is between the land, which was not made by anyone, and the fruits of human labor. A system which seems reasonable to me is to tax only land occupancy (land ownership if that's what you want to call it), but not the improvements or any other personal property. You may think of this as an indirect payment to the rest of society for restricting their access to the land. Not only would this be a feasible change in the method of taxation, but it would be an economic incentive as well. Here in King County, Washington, the local tax assessors already determine the land component of property values. In the future, they could simply ignore the improvements portion of the calculation. Today, since improvements, like construction, raise the assessed value of a piece of property, and hence the property taxes, there is in effect a tax on construction. By taxing only land value, this disincentive to construction would be removed. As a practical matter, this type of change needs to be phased in over a period of years, to avoid sudden dislocation. You simply start taxing the land at higher rates and the improvements at lower rates, keeping the sum constant. (if you are Libertarian, the advantage of eliminating keeping track of improvements, and hence laying off some civil servants, should be appealing to you. Its a small step in the right direction.) Dani Eder / Boeing / ssc-vax!eder
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/29/85)
> > >Why should ANYONE be able to claim they own the land? > > > tim sevener whuxl!orb > > > > By that logic, Mr. Sevener, how can *you* claim to own the clothes... > > Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" > > The difference is between the land, which was not made by anyone, > and the fruits of human labor. A system which seems reasonable to me > is to tax only land occupancy (land ownership if that's what you want > to call it), but not the improvements or any other personal property. > Dani Eder / Boeing / ssc-vax!eder Hoo boy! A Georgeist! This is getting more interesting by the minute. By the way, I don't agree with you, but "I could live with" a single-taxer. --JoSH