On 2 Nov 2007 at 20:54, Brian Holtz wrote: > Dan Sullivan wrote on LPradicals: > > DS) All together, a few of us working quietly on the issue got six tax > shifts passed, some off of buildings and some off of wages. The results of > our work has been covered, not only in Pittsburgh newspapers, but in columns > all over the country. It was even featured in Fortune Magazine. > http://localtax.com/fortune/hightax.html (DS > > That's awesome! Land value taxation is endorsed by a broad > range of leading libertarian economists (like the late Milton > Friedman and marketliberal-reading geolibertarian theorist > Fred Foldvary) as the least bad form of taxation.
I believe Foldvary's endorsement is stronger than Friedman's, in that he considers the tax necessary for rational land use, where Friedman merely considered it, as you say, the least bad tax. > Unfortunately, the Radical Caucus is adamantly opposed to any > such tax reform that trades one form of taxation for another, > no matter how much the overall tax burden or deadweight loss > is reduced. Thinking about such tradeoffs apparently makes > their heads hurt, or makes them fear becoming un-libertarian, > or something like that. Several of us Reform Caucus members on > the Platform Committee are fans of geolibertarianism and want > to endorse a shift to land value taxation in the Platform: > e.g. > http://marketliberal.org/PlatComWiki/Taxation_Plank#Holtz_Draft. Henry Haller is a local libertarian on the platform committee, and he said there was interest in the land value tax on that committee. > You can bet that the Radical Caucus will oppose any such > change. Most members probably will. However, they do support user fees, and payment for exclusive use of the commons is not really different from payment for the use of any other public amenity. I see it as a reconciliation issue, rather than a compromise position. That is, I see it emerging based on people sorting things out and reconciling their differences. My own view is that libertarians should stick to their beliefs, even when they disagree with my own, until such time as they see things differently. If they are not convinced of the idea, they should not support it out of mere compromise. This differs from some reform caucus positions that seem to be based on watering down the platform in the name of acceptability. It is why I am not aligned with the reform caucus, even though they back the position that is most dear to me. -ds
