Re: Eminent Domain Abuse

royls_at_telus.net
Date: 03/06/05 

Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 01:46:58 GMT

On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 15:25:56 -0800, "David Schwartz"
<davids@webmaster.com> wrote:

><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:422a32a5.22586618@news.telus.net...
>
>>>Nobody even argued that the benefit
>>>was proportional to the amount of property,
>>
>> Uh, actually, they did:
>
> Where?

?? Right after the colon. Can't you read?

>> "The preservation of property is the end of government, and that for
>> which men enter into society. It is true governments cannot be
>> supported without great charge, and it is fit everyone who enjoys his
>> share of that protection should pay out of his estate his proportion
>> for the maintenance of it."
>> -- John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, 1690
>
> This does not say the *benefit* is proportional to the proprty.

Yes, actually, it does. As men enter into society for the
preservation of their property, the benefit they gain thereby is equal
to the amount of property thus preserved.

>> "The revenues of the state are the fraction that each subject gives of
>> his property in order to secure or to have the agreeable enjoyment of
>> the remainder."
>> -- Baron de Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, 1751
>
> This doesn't say the *benefit* is proportional to the property.

Yes, actually, it does. The security and agreeable enjoyment of one's
property are the benefit, and are clearly proportional to the amount
of property involved.

>> "The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is
>> like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate,
>> who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective
>> interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim
>> consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation."
>> -- Adam Smith, The wealth of Nations, 1776
>
> This does not say the *benefit* is proportional to the property.

Yes, actually, it does. The benefit one gets from a managed resource
is proportional to one's ownership interest in it. That's the basis
of joint-stock corporations.

>> "It is generally allowed by all, that men should contribute to the
>> public charge but according to the share and interest they have in the
>> public peace; that is, according to their estates or riches."
>> -- Sir William Petty, British Prime Minister, 1782-3
>
> This does not say the *benefit* is proportional to the property.

Yes, actually, it does. "Interest" here is equivalent to benefit
received.

OK. So you can't read.

>> But for reasons that have become clear through advances in economics
>> since then, benefit received from government is most closely measured
>> by value of government-granted privileges owned: land titles, IP
>> monopolies, corporate limited liability, etc.
>
> This says the benefit is best measured this way, but doesn't argue that
>it actually *is* proportional.

Oh, come off it. That's like saying a scale reading is a measure of
weight, but is not the actual weight of the thing being weighed. It's
just metaphysical claptrap.

>>>so arguing that the tax isn't
>>>proportional to the property doesn't argue that it's not proportional to
>>>the benefit.
>
>> Yes, actually, it does.
>
> You see no difference between "men should pay for government in
>proportion to their property" and "men benefit from government in proportion
>to their property"? It isn't clear that these are two different claims?

Yes, but the former claim is being made on the basis of the latter.

>>>Fundamentally, the only
>>>thing that can be taxed is the production of value.
>>
>> Flat false. All taxes must come _out_of_ produced value, but that
>> does not mean production of value is the only thing that can be taxed.
>>
>> Are you intelligent enough to figure out why that is the case?
>
> No, I don't see the difference.

OK, very few people are smart enough to figure out something like that
on their own. Ten years ago I didn't understand it, despite all my
reading in economics.

>Every tax on produced value reduces the
>value of the production process.

But land rent is not a produced value. It's a potential value. And
because a tax on land rent is just the same whether any value is
produced or not, the tax is not on the private production of value but
on the community-provided _opportunity_ to produce value. Notice the
difference: if you tax production of value, people will produce less
value; but if you tax them on the _opportunity_ to produce value that
they choose to take up, they will produce _more_ value.

>A tax on the sale of cars, for example,
>reduces the value of a car I could sell by precisely the amount of the tax.

More or less (elasticity also figures in the relationship), and that
will reduce the number of cars you are willing to sell. Now suppose
the tax is levied not on the number of cars you sell, but on the
number of cars you _could_ sell (as measured by the local population,
their incomes, the average age of their cars and so forth). Would you
be likely to sell more cars or fewer than if there were no tax at all?
How do you think land value relates to the number of cars you could
sell, vs the number you actually do sell? See the difference now?

-- Roy L

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Eminent Domain Abuse
    ... > weight, but is not the actual weight of the thing being weighed. ... > because a tax on land rent is just the same whether any value is ... > will reduce the number of cars you are willing to sell. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Another $17.4 Billion WASTED
    ... limit the public's demand for large cars and trucks... ... Taxation never improves the economy. ... drag down industry so there's less of it and therefore less to tax, ... The government shouldn't have done anything about limiting the ...
    (rec.autos.driving)
  • Re: Motor trade redundancys
    ... >> Tax of any variety is always a contentious issue. ... >> unfairly levied at a greater amount on larger cars. ... >> established this tax slide for engine sizes based on global warming ... government introduced the sliding road tax crap, ...
    (uk.rec.cars.maintenance)
  • Re: Motor trade redundancys
    ... new tax either visibly, or by the back door, every few weeks to the ... unfairly levied at a greater amount on larger cars. ... established this tax slide for engine sizes based on global warming ... government introduced the sliding road tax crap, ...
    (uk.rec.cars.maintenance)
  • Re: Lets do our bit for the good ol british bobby
    ... the government will never do any thing that discourages the ... They are too reliant on taxing cars to do any ... This is one of the most anti-car governments we have ever had. ... > They will tax and tax and tax again and the car at the moment is a good ...
    (uk.rec.driving)