An LVT would massively disrupt millions of people’s long-term plans
this seem like a fully general argument, any law change is going to disrupt people’s long term plans,
e.g. the abolishment of slavery also disrupt people’s long term plans
I suppose you can argue that the magnitude is too big, put then I would assume that some period of phasing in would help.
you can argue that the short term cost is more than the long term gain but I am not convinced.
The government has incentives to inflate their estimates of the value of unimproved land
by your own logic, the government also has incentive to inflate their estimate value of income or whatever is being taxed right now?
Another major issue is that a full or near-full land value tax would likely establish a troubling precedent by signaling that the government has the appetite to effectively confiscate an additional category of assets that people have already acquired long ago through their labor and purchases.
would you still oppose it if the tax is only add to new purchase?
this seem like a fully general argument, any law change is going to disrupt people’s long term plans,
e.g. the abolishment of slavery also disrupt people’s long term plans
In this case, I was simply identifying one additional cost of the policy in question: namely that it would massively disrupt the status quo. My point is not that we should abandon a policy simply because it has costs—every policy has costs. Rather, I think we should carefully weigh the benefits of a policy against its costs to determine whether it is worth pursuing, and this is one additional non-trivial cost to consider.
My reasoning for supporting the abolition of slavery, for example, is not based on the idea that abolition has no costs at all. Instead, I believe slavery should be abolished because the benefits of abolition far outweigh those costs.
this seem like a fully general argument, any law change is going to disrupt people’s long term plans,
e.g. the abolishment of slavery also disrupt people’s long term plans
I suppose you can argue that the magnitude is too big, put then I would assume that some period of phasing in would help.
you can argue that the short term cost is more than the long term gain but I am not convinced.
by your own logic, the government also has incentive to inflate their estimate value of income or whatever is being taxed right now?
would you still oppose it if the tax is only add to new purchase?
In this case, I was simply identifying one additional cost of the policy in question: namely that it would massively disrupt the status quo. My point is not that we should abandon a policy simply because it has costs—every policy has costs. Rather, I think we should carefully weigh the benefits of a policy against its costs to determine whether it is worth pursuing, and this is one additional non-trivial cost to consider.
My reasoning for supporting the abolition of slavery, for example, is not based on the idea that abolition has no costs at all. Instead, I believe slavery should be abolished because the benefits of abolition far outweigh those costs.