Re: LVT, more arguments against---again
- From: EskWIRED@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 15:27:44 +0000 (UTC)
In sci.econ, sinister <sinister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Government has the power to tax, but not to confiscate without paying just
> compensation. I would argue that the government, having once granted title
> to land in exchange for consideration, may not justly raise taxes so high as
> to amount to a re-taking of the entire rent that was part of the land's
> bundle of rights.
I was thinking about the 5th amendment implications of a 100% LVT. This
adds clarity. Thanks.
--
Words are flying out like endless rain into a paper cup.
They slither while they pass. They slip away across the universe.
--John Lennon
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: LVT, more arguments against---again
- From: sinister
- Re: LVT, more arguments against---again
- References:
- LVT, more arguments against---again
- From: sinister
- LVT, more arguments against---again
- Prev by Date: Re: Why price-floors and price-ceilings?
- Next by Date: Re: Paul Krugman's Baby Sitting Co-op "Recession"
- Previous by thread: Re: LVT, more arguments against---again
- Next by thread: Re: LVT, more arguments against---again
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
