Do you think a government should be able to seize property under eminent domain if they believe that selling it to a third party to commercially develop would lead to higher tax revenue?
>Claiming that you have ownership over land on this planet is odd, you didn't create the land and governments change overtime.
The government didn't create the land either.
>The government didn't create the land either.
The government did create the peace and order that allows you to sleep at night on your land without having to worry about another tribe taking your land from you. Without an ability to defend it, "your" land is a tenuous label.
The government, and the rest of society, also pays a hefty price routing utilities, police, ambulances, and people around your property's borders. The more property you have, the more it costs the rest of society, not just in money, but in time.
Earned income taxes are the most evil of all taxes. Why would you have to pay for the act of providing value to society?
The result is that return on effort are reduced. That mean labor, entrepreneurs, and capital bear the burden of supporting government budgets as opposed to landowners who benefit from the economic activity making their land valuable.
Taxes as a rule discourages whatever get taxed. The exception to this is land, because land isn't created. It already exists in nature.
Don't tax what people make, tax what people took.
This was self-evident in the feudal era, when landlords (Lords) had to at least raise their own militaries to assert this monopoly right. But the modern State and the landlords reached a compromise: the State will provide security to protect the lords' monopoly on nature so long as the landlords don't raise armed forces.
Totally absurd arrangement.
The current arrangement demonstrably does not work for society in place, and as AI (whether in this wave of innovation or the next) increases productivity further, it will work less and less by virtue of further increasing land rents, thereby pricing out larger and larger swaths of society from a place to live, work, or otherwise exist.
It seems like you're arguing that the people who own high value land should pay higher taxes than those who don't.
I agree!
My solution does anticipate real-world human interactions: don't give rich landowners tax breaks. This is baked into the premise of having a high tax. A tax that is effectively not-high is by definition not a high tax, ergo is not the solution I am proposing. If I proposed a solution of "have a tax that is claimed to be high but actually is not," then your response would be valid. But my solution was: have a high land value tax.
Your solution is dismissible by your same logic. "While removing any and all subsidies is well-intended, in practice real-world human interactions dictate that will not occur."
<< My solution does anticipate real-world human interactions: don't give rich landowners tax breaks. This is baked into the premise of having a high tax.
If it fails to address those now ( because those are already high ), what, exactly makes you think, it will work better if we increase those taxes? If anything, increasing those taxes will become an incentive to find ways to mitigate their impact..
The solution to remove those for everyone across the board, but we can't do that. We can't have an even playing field.