Killer Arguments Against LVT, Not (449)

The spat on Twitter rumbled on for a bit:

CityUnslicker: I pointed out repeatedly that creating a system that over time will transfer all property rights to the government (it will, in every recession) and that allows government to set taxes on corporate incomes rather than profits will/

That last bit is bollocks, he can only be referring to turnover taxes like VAT, which is very much the diametric opposite of Land Value tax. He doesn't say what it "will" either, but we can safely assume Something Absolutely Terrible.

Me: Are you confusing "property" with "land" again? Do you not realise that output and earnings are truly private property and thus shouldn't be taxed, or taxed a lot less?

Cheerfully ignoring the question, CityUnslicker continues digging himself into the hole:

We would all be at the mercy of the state to give us a job or shelter at their whim. Who wants that? The reality of LVT is so different from your theoretical pontificating on here.

Sobers takes a similar line:

... private land ownership enforceable by an independent judiciary is a huge bulwark against State tyranny. The first act of any tyranny is to remove the ability of the individual to own and control land, because owning land gives an individual power against the predations of the State, and any would be dictator needs to remove that power as a first step to dominating the population.

And giving the State the power to determine who occupies a piece of land (which is what LVT does, it makes the State the effective landowner and the nominal owner the tenant) means that if it wants to the State may remove any or all owners from their land by the simple expediency of increasing the 'rent' until it can not longer be paid.

Their stance is inherently contradictory, but it appear to be that private land ownership (and subsidies thereto) are somehow sacred, but that output and earnings are fair game for taxation (to fund public services which create and sustain land values), as they are magically not really anybody's "property".

OK, let's build that into our LVT administrative model and invent some new administrative rules:
- if a person is in arrears with LVT, the government is allowed to claw it back from their annual income, even if it reduces it to zero;
- if there are still arrears once their entire income is taken, the government is allowed to seize and sell off any of that person's non-land assets;
- if there are still arrears after all assets have been seized and sold off, those arrears are waived. Under no circumstances will there be any enforcement of debts against that person's land and buildings.

That should keep them happy! Nobody will ever lose their home because of LVT arrears. Or do they maybe want to rethink their outrageous claim that people's income and non-land assets aren't really people's property?