Re: Murray Rothbard on Georgist fallacies
- From: "Dan in Philly" <djr8@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 00:39:18 GMT
"sinister" <sinister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message...
If the owner rents the land to someone now, he'll earn $0 per year, hence
pay $0 in tax. Then someday, when things improve, he'll rent the land for
$100,000 and pay tax on that.
That's not true. If the land really is somewhat valuable---somewhere
between $0/acre and the amount it would be worth if there were no crack
houses---then the tax will fall on that value, even if he can't get much
income from renting it out as is.
I assumed the LVT was an annual tax, like property taxes are today.
If it's a one-time tax at purchase, then the guy who buys land next to the
crack house will have to pay lots of $$ out of pocket. But presumably that's
the present discounted value of the land, which would become more valuable
after the neighborhood is cleaned up.
Both of these have disadvantagges. The former requires the government to
estimate the land rent every year. The latter requires the purchaser to pay
money for an asset that is not (initially, anyway) providing an income
stream.
Dan in Philly
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Murray Rothbard on Georgist fallacies
- From: royls
- Re: Murray Rothbard on Georgist fallacies
- References:
- Murray Rothbard on Georgist fallacies
- From: w_b_ryan
- Re: Murray Rothbard on Georgist fallacies
- From: Dan in Philly
- Re: Murray Rothbard on Georgist fallacies
- From: sinister
- Murray Rothbard on Georgist fallacies
- Prev by Date: Re: National Debt
- Next by Date: more anti-Georgist drivel
- Previous by thread: Re: Murray Rothbard on Georgist fallacies
- Next by thread: Re: Murray Rothbard on Georgist fallacies
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|