Voting Rights

[BaseJester 1]

But why should the rest of society subsidize some people's inheritance. If somebody is paying less than that means somebody is going to be paying more than they should.

The word subsidize assumes a particular correct distribution of tax burden and is begging the question in this discussion.

[hblask 1]

I think LLY hits the key problems with a land tax on the head:1) it would discourage city growth, and cities are economic engines;2) it would leave cities and suburbs subsidizing rural areas even more than the amount they already do now, while those same rural areas are filled with militia types blathering on about how they don't need no guvmint to make it on their own.

I suspect you are guessing, and frankly, I am too. One of the objections I used to see to a land tax on other message boards is that farmers would lose their land because, even though it's less per acre, they have a lot of it and it produces less, so it's interesting to see people worried about cities bearing the cost.There's a LOT of land outside cities. I mean a lot. Drive across Kansas sometime.I'm not saying charge into it without thought, but it has so many features that would be positives, I think it would be a net gain. Land prices tend to reflect the earning potential of the area where the land is located. (Think about it.) If that is really true, then it is really a fair, simple tax. I wish the idea would get enough legs for someone to actually do the analysis. I'd try it if I even knew how to begin.