Well land can't move and the owner does not create the unimproved value or economic rent so a land value tax based on the unimproved value according to Barrons magazine guide to economics would not negeatively effect labor or capital since neither would be taxed. Now most landowners taxes would be light while a small minority would be taxed heavy and most of that small minority could more than make up for it by not having a tax on their income, capital and other assets, homes, fencing, apartments, factories, stores, landscaping, swimming pools etc would not be taxed. On the other a very small percetage of land owners including farmers store owners etc would not make enough income to pay the land tax and they would be runned out off their land, land that might have been in the family for hundreds of years. That happens today with the property tax especially in some areas of the country. People who bought homes in the 80s in Southern Maine for less than 90,000 dollars have been seeing their home values go up so much that the property tax is 10,000 a year, some can't pay that they have to sell. Then you have these vultures who make a killing off property tax lien notes. That is one big reason I am dead set against the property tax or the land value tax, other wise I think the land value tax would be one of the best if we must have taxes and I don't think we do.--- In [email protected], Jon Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is ancient rule of tax policy that for maximum revenue and compliance > taxes should not fall too heavily on any one point in the economy. By > that rule taxes should be collected at small rates at many points, so > that at no point is it worth it for the taxpayer to evade. When the rate > is excessive at a point, evasion occurs. > > Another ancient rule is that taxes should be imposed on things that > can't evade by moving away or concealing themselves. A corollary of this > rule is to avoid imposing taxes on small players in small amounts that > it doesn't pay to enforce collection of. That favors taxing things like > resource extraction, thus leading many to support a "carbon" tax on > fossil fuels at or near the point of production or import, rather than > at the point of use. That is also why my proposed purchase tax would not > be collected from the ultimate purchasers, as well as because it is at > that point a direct tax that is in conflict with the constitutional > apportionment clause. > > One problem here, of course, is that if taxes are imposed on domestic > producers and not also on imports, those imports have an unfair > advantage over domestic producers. That brings us into conflict with the > rule that free trade, that is, no tariffs, is better for global economic > performance, unless tariff rates are set equal for all countries. > Coordinating that is tough, and while in principle exchange rates should > offset tariff imbalances, that requires floating exchange rates, which > results in price instability. > > -- Jon > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 > 512/374-9585 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ---------------------------------------------------------------- >
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
