At the levels where an LVT is effectively coercive, it’s functionally indistinguishable from rent paid to the government for land you don’t actually own.
I expect most citizens would recognize this and any effective LVT would be politically DOA.
I expect most citizens would recognize this and any effective LVT would be politically DOA.
My point is that Americans who own one or more plots of land definitely do NOT believe they are renting that land from the government. Ownership is, of course, a degree of control and everything is a matter of degree. Meaningful LVT would be a qualitative change in a home- or farm- or business-owner’s degree of control over what they heretofore considered their property, and they’d recognize that.
I don't see how this follows. Would you mind explaining?
The LVT as envisioned by its advocates isn’t like that. It’s a fee—largely determined by market forces—to continue to occupy and make use of “your” land. If the government can insist you pay some market-set cost to remain on a plot of land, you don’t own it in the way we classically think about land title ownership. You’re not the market participant, the government is.