VM78 - Tax Motion
MPs only
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
| Please change your TSR password | 23-05-2013 | |
-
View Poll Results: Do you agree with this motion?
As many are of the opinion, Aye 16 36.36% On the contrary, No 15 34.09% Abstain 13 29.55%
-
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
- Location: West Yorkshire
- Posts: 11,808
Re: VM78 - Tax MotionA land value tax is likely the most efficient form of taxation in existence so a good thing if it replaces other taxes which limit consumption or productivity.(Original post by internetguru)
Don't see how changing taxation from income tax to land taxed helps the economy or the national budget. We need to cut spending. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Posts: 3,086
Re: VM78 - Tax Motion(Original post by tufc)
No. People have the right to own land/property, and do what they like with it. Just because someone doesn't 'improve' land doesn't mean the government has the right to pinch it.It is this claim to own land as being legitimate that is quite baffling. We take a desert island scenario - and 5 people arrive, who has what claim to take which pieces of land? None of the value in the land was created by any of the people who own in (since it's taxed as if it were unimproved, anything anyone does to increase the value they are welcome to keep) - but rather the value comes from location and nature. Location is value created by those around it, whilst that from nature is created by no-one. Why should this value go to one person? Why should they be able to make a greater claim to the land and thus be able to exclude anyone else? Why should they be able to take what is created by no-one and keep it all for themselves?(Original post by Moleman1996)
If people own land that is unimproved, then it should not be taken away from them.
No from me. -
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Posts: 4,580
Re: VM78 - Tax Motionbut nobody would have purchased said desert island. If they have legitimately purchased the land, then the land belongs to them. If we follow your idea, then in that case what right does the government have to said land?(Original post by jesusandtequila)
It is this claim to own land as being legitimate that is quite baffling. We take a desert island scenario - and 5 people arrive, who has what claim to take which pieces of land? None of the value in the land was created by any of the people who own in (since it's taxed as if it were unimproved, anything anyone does to increase the value they are welcome to keep) - but rather the value comes from location and nature. Location is value created by those around it, whilst that from nature is created by no-one. Why should this value go to one person? Why should they be able to make a greater claim to the land and thus be able to exclude anyone else? Why should they be able to take what is created by no-one and keep it all for themselves? -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Posts: 3,086
Re: VM78 - Tax MotionBut the person they purchased it from didn't have the claim to own it in the first place. Besides, it's not the government seizing bits of land, merely that people should pay a charge for excluding everyone else from the use of what should be common, and who's value is created by everyone else or no-one. The right to tax it comes from the fact that it should be common property, thus the value from it should be socialised.(Original post by Moleman1996)
but nobody would have purchased said desert island. If they have legitimately purchased the land, then the land belongs to them. If we follow your idea, then in that case what right does the government have to said land? -
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Posts: 4,580
Re: VM78 - Tax MotionOnce land is purchased, it should be yours. Obviously the state should be able to seize, but only for a very good reason. This is not the reason. We should not take away land that people have purchased simply because they haven't used it yet.(Original post by jesusandtequila)
But the person they purchased it from didn't have the claim to own it in the first place. Besides, it's not the government seizing bits of land, merely that people should pay a charge for excluding everyone else from the use of what should be common, and who's value is created by everyone else or no-one. The right to tax it comes from the fact that it should be common property, thus the value from it should be socialised. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Posts: 6,544
Re: VM78 - Tax MotionPurchased from who? At some point somebody has gone "this is my land" then decided to sell it, and it's been sold on. What legitimacy does the person who originally took the land have to claim it? It's going by the theory that land is socialised - meaning that nobody has a right to just claim land as theirs. Abolishing the ownership of land would be impractical, so a tax on unimproved land works on this principle.(Original post by Moleman1996)
Once land is purchased, it should be yours. Obviously the state should be able to seize, but only for a very good reason. This is not the reason. We should not take away land that people have purchased simply because they haven't used it yet. -
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Posts: 4,580
Re: VM78 - Tax Motionyes, and therefore what legitamacy does a government have if you're going to look at things that way? After all, at some point somebody has just said 'these are our borders', therefore where does our country stop and start? As i said earlier, under this case, tehn the government has no more right to the land than its owners.(Original post by davidmarsh01)
Purchased from who? At some point somebody has gone "this is my land" then decided to sell it, and it's been sold on. What legitimacy does the person who originally took the land have to claim it? It's going by the theory that land is socialised - meaning that nobody has a right to just claim land as theirs. Abolishing the ownership of land would be impractical, so a tax on unimproved land works on this principle. -
- Reputation:
- Community Assistant
- Deputy Secretary General of the Model UN
- Location: South London
- Posts: 2,609
Re: VM78 - Tax MotionA no from me - people have a right to own property or land to and build on it or not. I do not believe that the government should force them into doing anything with it unless it's desperate.
Last edited by RoryS; 03-05-2012 at 19:01. -
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
- Posts: 1,028
Re: VM78 - Tax MotionI though this motion was agreeing with unimproved land?(Original post by RoryS)
A tax on unimproved land would be a better solution here.
This House broadly agrees that we should seek to socialise that which should be common (unimproved land)Last edited by DebatingGreg; 03-05-2012 at 18:59. -
- Reputation:
- Community Assistant
- Deputy Secretary General of the Model UN
- Location: South London
- Posts: 2,609
Re: VM78 - Tax MotionOhh I'm confused. I think it is. My mistake. Will edit post now...(Original post by DebatingGreg)
I though this motion was agreeing with unimproved land?
Cheers Greg
-
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Posts: 3,086
Re: VM78 - Tax MotionGovernment doesn't force them to do anything - it merely makes people pay for excluding everyone else from a common resource. If they wish to leave it blank then that's their choice - but they should still have to pay from excluding everyone else from the resource which should belong to everyone.(Original post by RoryS)
A no from me - people have a right to own property or land to and build on it or not. I do not believe that the government should force them into doing anything with it unless it's desperate. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Posts: 3,086
Re: VM78 - Tax MotionIt's not so much that the government has a right to it, but that the government is merely a tool to redistribute the value from the unimproved land to the people who live within that jurisdiction. For sure - everyone in the world has an equal claim to it, but we have to work within the framework we're given here.(Original post by Moleman1996)
yes, and therefore what legitamacy does a government have if you're going to look at things that way? After all, at some point somebody has just said 'these are our borders', therefore where does our country stop and start? As i said earlier, under this case, tehn the government has no more right to the land than its owners.
In addition, the government is seizing the land at all - it's merely charging those for the exclusion of everyone else from the use of what is their (that is, everyone's) land. -
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Posts: 4,580
Re: VM78 - Tax Motionso we're now moving into communistic ideas of 'everyone's land'.(Original post by jesusandtequila)
It's not so much that the government has a right to it, but that the government is merely a tool to redistribute the value from the unimproved land to the people who live within that jurisdiction. For sure - everyone in the world has an equal claim to it, but we have to work within the framework we're given here.
In addition, the government is seizing the land at all - it's merely charging those for the exclusion of everyone else from the use of what is their (that is, everyone's) land. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Posts: 3,086
Re: VM78 - Tax MotionDid you read the motion?(Original post by Moleman1996)
so we're now moving into communistic ideas of 'everyone's land'.
Oh, and secondly, which bit of this do you disagree with? "Unimproved land was created by no man, and is the product of no man's time or effort. Why can one man lay claim to any piece of land ahead of another? Each has equal (i.e. zero) claim to it."
