Number One out of over fifty million: argument against land value tax.
There's not much I'd change about the original post either, so it's nice to see that people still read it every now and then. I've done another hundred posts on the topic, but all the arguments against revolve around the same old misconceptions and untruths.
Friday, 10 June 2011
Deeply Gratifying Google Searches
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Good crib sheet thanks.
I was talking to a lawyer friend last week who alleged that LVT would undermine land property rights, which all other property rights are based on, which in turn our entire social system is based on. I said that land property rights could be seen separately, but he didn't accept the distinction. I said the distinction was that no-one had created land originally, so no-one had the right to sell (or buy) it, but being a Tory he was mightily turned off by this, and one of his friends said I sounded like "a 1920s communist". Him being a lawyer and knowing more about "property rights" than me, I was stumped (and drunk). What is a rebuttal for this? (I'm new so.)
Ps. If you care you can add Matt Bellamy of Muse to your list of LVT supporters: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article6802083.ece (5th para)
BNJ, ta, I've added MB.
"LVT would undermine land property rights, which all other property rights are based on, which in turn our entire social system is based on."
You don't need to be a lawyer to know that this is complete nonsense...
1. Vis a vis society in general, a tenant or somebody with a big mortgage has the same 'property rights' (the right to exclusive possession etc) as an outright owner. LVT does not undermine the right to exclusive possession one little bit. In fact, the whole basis of LVT is that it is a payment in return therefor.
2. What about Business Rates, which is much like LVT but only on commercial premises?
3. Other property rights (shares, bank accounts, physical goods) are quite separate and independent of land 'ownership', as are the right to keep the income you earn or the 'right' not to be mugged, raped or murdered, the right to vote etc.
4. As to 'our entire social system' what complete bollocks. Imagine somebody who rents a council house or housing association house and who owns or works for a business which happens to rent its premises from Crown Estates - is this man not 'part of society'?
5. If he actually means "our entire FEUDAL social system is based on land ownership", then he is in fact correct, but surely we want to move forward/away from this?
Interesting stuff to those of us who are new to it. I read the original and actually understood it.
BNJ: There's also the point that the UK used Land tax as its main source of income throughout most of the 18th century, so if LVT was going to destroy property rights and the foundations of British civilisation, then its probably too late.
Have you run posts on LVT? Where?
AKH, thanks, I take it you approach these matters with an open mind rather than thinking "What's in it for me?"
D, splendid riposte, I must remember that.
JH, here on this very 'blog :-)
Post a Comment