A Different Perspective on Taxation

[gusl]

Maybe I've just solved the problem of how to tax within libertarian ethics.

You own this huge piece of land. You sell small pieces of it under the following conditions:

You sell 80% of the right to each smaller piece of land. Your ownership density is uniformly 20% in all land, for which you charge a rent. Basically, you get 20% of all landlord rent revenues. If someone owns his own home, he is renting to himself, and owes you 20% of that. The problem now is that fair-market value must be assessed to prevent cheating (on both sides). Maybe this could be solved by an auction-like game for the use of the land, specified in the contract.

Now, your only incentive to provide public services is to maximize your land's value by keeping up the demand: your tenants can always emigrate for better lands.

Of course to make sure you (the state) keep to the contract, the tenants also pay a contract enforcer. You, already owning a law-enforcement agency, don't bother.

Children are born into your land, grow up there, etc, but, unlike their parents, they never agreed to your rules, and don't want to pay taxes. So they start a political movement, call it "the anarchist movement", to fight for the right to not pay taxes (rent).

The point is:
This second-generation of inhabitants is arguing against libertarianism, using the same argument that libertarians use against statism, namely that:
"the state shouldn't have the right to kick you out of the country for not paying your taxes".

If the Uncle Sam owned all of America, and Americans were born into this contract of slavery (we make no guarantees about future laws and taxation), is there anything really wrong with him charging whatever tax he wants?



I want to post this on the BON list, so I'm trying to polish it some more. Comments? Comments?

Comments

[candid.livejournal.com]

I don't believe in a "libertarian ethics," so take what I say with a corresponding grain of salt.

You sell 80% of the right to each smaller piece of land.

I don't quite know what this means. If I "own" 80% of a plot of land, and you "own" 20%, who gets to decide what gets built on it? If I want to build a church on it, and you want to build a house, what do we do? Roll 2d10 and let me build if it's 79 or less?
Briefly, I can't conceive a coherent system of property rights which works in this way. This may just represent a lack of imagination on my part, but -- for most purposes -- either you own a plot of land, or you don't. This sort of "fractional ownership" seems ... odd to me.

The point is: This second-generation of inhabitants is arguing against libertarianism

I don't see how. What part of libertarianism holds me responsible for the contractual obligations of my parents?

--

These problems aside, why bother trying to justify taxes in a "libertarian ethics?" What do you hope to accomplish?

(I ask this not to be difficult but out of earnest curiosity.)

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

> I don't quite know what this means. If I "own" 80% of a plot of land, and you "own" 20%, who > gets to decide what gets built on it? If I want to build a church on it, and you want to >build a house, what do we do? Roll 2d10 and let me build if it's 79 or less?
>Briefly, I can't conceive a coherent system of property rights which works in this way. This >may just represent a lack of imagination on my part, but -- for most purposes -- either you >own a plot of land, or you don't. This sort of "fractional ownership" seems ... odd to me.

Well, all those things would be specified in the land-selling contract. But, for all of our purposes, we could just say that the buyer makes all decisions on the land, but has to pay a rent on it.


>I don't see how. What part of libertarianism holds me responsible for the contractual >obligations of my parents?

None. But all the land is partly owned by the state. So, no matter where you live, you need to pay taxes (paid as rent), if you are going to stay in the country.

My purposes?
I think that limited taxation, if properly invested, can be a good thing for everybody.
Another purpose is to question land property rights in general. I'm expressing my anarchist side.

[candid.livejournal.com]

But, for all of our purposes, we could just say that the buyer makes all decisions on the land, but has to pay a rent on it.

Part of me wants to say that he's a renter, then, albeit one with a fair amount of latitude. The other part of me wants to ask why the hell anyone would ever "buy" a plot of land whose purchase entailed having to pay perpetual rent.

think that limited taxation, if properly invested, can be a good thing for everybody. Another purpose is to question land property rights in general. I'm expressing my anarchist side.

A while back, I stopped thinking like a libertarian, and I started thinking like an economist. So rather than tying myself in knots over "how do we justify private property in land?" (which was always, as far as I was concerned, a Very Hard Question in "libertarian ethics"), I started asking, "how would a society without private property rights in land work?"

My answer was "not very well." And that was all the justification I needed. :)
As for limited taxation being good for everyone, I find that doubtful, though I won't dismiss it a priori.