New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | February 25, 2005

Is it a "public use" any time the government takes your property and hands it over to someone who makes more money? After reviewing oral arguments in an important eminent domain case, Jacob Sullum worries that the Supreme Court thinks it is.

Comments

|2.25.05 @ 9:51AM|#

I increasingly believe that IJ's time and money would be better spent in states that have voter initiative processes trying to get measures passed that would sharply restrict the availability of eminent domain.

|2.25.05 @ 10:08AM|#

SR - interesting thought, but maybe getting this case in front of the supreme court, even (especially) if they lose, would help raise public awareness of the issue and hence add some more motivation to those state-level initiatives?

I bet if I survey the next 10 people I cross in the hall about eminent domain abuse, 0 out of 10 have any awareness of it at all.

|2.25.05 @ 10:19AM|#

New London Attorney Horton has a very feudal position, doesn't he? By his rationale, any propery that a rich person wants that a poor person owns should be yielded to rich person.

The fact that the Supreme Court choose not to see this as a scam is disgusting. To me, that's all it is, a means for the wealthy to get what they want over the rights of those with lower incomes.

I'm also puzzled by those who believe that city governments represent some sort of democractic model where fairness and the will of the people matter. If anything, local governments are more prone to corruption, cronyism, and self important politcal officials than state or federal governments.

|2.25.05 @ 10:28AM|#

SR,

I think it would be best to take a both-and approach rather than either-or. An example of this (though, of course, not one I'm happy about) is the campaign for legalized abortion; first, NARAL et al fought for legislative action in a few liberal states (NY, CA).

Then, when arguing before the Supremes in RvW, they could pose not as wild-eyed radicals, but supporters of a movement that had already achieved successes and was merely waiting for the rest of the nation to catch up.* You can bet that if a few important states had restricted eminent domain usage, and there was considerable popular support nationwide for such restrictions, the Court would be approaching this issue differently.


* As weak as the (victorious) plaintiff's case was in RvW, one should not underestimate the power of being perceived in the eyes of the Court as the wave of the future.

|2.25.05 @ 11:45AM|#

I bet if I survey the next 10 people I cross in the hall about eminent domain abuse, 0 out of 10 have any awareness of it at all.

And if you explain to them that the Supreme Court is about to confirm the right of the State to hand over your property to anyone willing to pay higher taxes on it, 10 out of 10 will agree that the Supremes must be out of their f*****g minds.

This is just appalling. It makes a mockery of what I consider *reasonable* decisions that can be made by the government to improve a locality (such as some broad forms of zoning or planning large scale public works). It follows the slippery slope all the way to the end, and just empowers all the anti-planning types to say "see I told you so!"

Xmas|2.25.05 @ 11:46AM|#

You know, the building that houses the Supreme Court would better serve the public's interest if it was turned into a Wal-Mart.

|2.25.05 @ 12:10PM|#

Xmas,

True, but I think an even better improvement -- one that would benefit the taxpayers greatly -- would be converting the Capitol into a parking lot...

|2.25.05 @ 1:08PM|#

Rhywun - See, I told you so.

|2.25.05 @ 1:15PM|#

They're talking about this case right now on AM 850 KOA in Denver. For those of you not in the Denver area, the stream can be found at http://www.850koa.com. You have to register and download their proprietary stream thingy.

|2.25.05 @ 1:31PM|#

<slightly-offtopic>
To the Editors.

Lately, sometimes the links to the stories on the home page have reason.com as the host name, and sometimes they have www.reason.com as the host name. That difference affects the ability of browsers to know whether or not the page was already viewed, or if cookies apply. It is getting to be pretty annoying.

I really don't care which host name you eventually end up using, but please try to be consistent. I will say that when reason.com is the hostname, the popup doesn't display correctly. It comes up with a page not found error.

P.S.
The Friday Funnies link on the home page is broken and should be
http://www.reason.com/hod/cartoon.cb022505.shtml

Thanks.

</slightly-offtopic>

|2.25.05 @ 1:40PM|#

Oh, well. At least Joe will be happy that state and local governments won't need any excuse to kick people out of their homes when convenient. It'll probably be of some use to him in his job.

|2.25.05 @ 1:52PM|#

This is sickening. There's no other word for it.

|2.25.05 @ 2:32PM|#

Scalia did a terrific job here (from the article):

Justice Antonin Scalia sought to clarify the principle guiding the city's use of eminent domain: "Are we saying you can take from A and give to B if B pays more taxes?"

"If they are significantly more," Horton said.

Bryan|2.25.05 @ 2:42PM|#

Opening paragraph of a Newsday article on the case:

If New London can seize people's homes so private developers can build a hotel and convention center, what will cities do next? several Supreme Court justices asked during arguments Tuesday.

Opening paragraph of a Boston Globe piece:

In a case that has become a cause celebre for free market conservatives, seven Connecticut homeowners in danger of being forced to move for a city redevelopment project asked the Supreme Court yesterday to roll back the government's power to force private property owners to sell their land against their will.

An interesting dichotomy. Articles here and here.

|2.25.05 @ 4:35PM|#

Do we need any more proof that a very large portion of seemingly decent people are actually evil to their cores? Many if not most people are authoritarian by nature, thus, IMHO, they are evil--they are willing to use coercive force (even violence) to get their way, whether or not the issue concerns life or death. Maybe we libertarians need to accept that our philosophy is hampered by the fact that it is a good and moral way of living, and that most people simply aren't good or moral. (If you don't like the word evil, substitute primitive. There's really little difference.) I think that the vast majority of the world's problems are caused by the fact that the majority of human beings are little more than primitive, barely-thinking, hairless great apes.

|2.25.05 @ 4:52PM|#

I think it's more like: Most people are in fact decent, but have an astounding capacity to be blind to evil. Mostly because the evil thing has become an accepted part of "normal" everyday life. "It's just the way things get done."

|2.25.05 @ 6:12PM|#

Addendum: And the ability to ignore everyday types of evil may in fact be an evolved survival-enhancing characteristic. If you had a powerful counter-drive to seek out and right all wrongs, you'd drive yourself crazy and get nothing done yourself.

Too much immanentizing the eschaton is bad for you.

|2.25.05 @ 6:50PM|#

New London Attorney Horton has a very feudal position, doesn't he? By his rationale, any propery that a rich person wants that a poor person owns should be yielded to rich person.

Stating it like this puts it in the same perspective as a number of other freakish behaviors by a populace that is incapable of recognizing the basics of rights or the fundamentals of economics.

I have noticed this awful trend whereby the more important or valuable something is, the less people are willing to spend money on it. It is absolutely baffling.

You see it in health care, which should be the first thing people are willing to save and spend for. But instead people whine to the government to pay for it or to make their employers pay for it. Same thing for education. If your child's education is so important, it should be worth more to you than vacations, cable TV, etc., you should spend your own money on it, and public monies should be used solely to subsidize people who really can't afford it. And, now, retirement. Retirement benefits are so bloody important that people demand that the government tax others to provide them. But that's why you earn your own money: to buy things that are important to you.

And now -- here it is -- buying property. There is a perfectly reasonable solution to this issue of reallocating property to those who value it the most. If the property is more valuable to you than it is to the owner, *buy the damn property*!

If I were a judge seeing a case like this, I would take the fact that you walked into my courtroom as prima facie evidence that the property clearly isn't that valuable to you, or you would have simply bought it. If it's not valuable enough for you to buy it yourself, its tax revenue is certainly not high enough to warrant the state doing it on your behalf.

|2.25.05 @ 7:03PM|#

Oh, and speaking of using eminent domain to achieve higher tax revenue, imagine the monies which would flow into California coffers if homes long-owned under Prop 13 were "sold" by eminent domain.

A whole new real estate market....

|2.25.05 @ 8:03PM|#

Do we need any more proof that a very large portion of seemingly decent people are actually evil to their cores? Many if not most people are authoritarian by nature, thus, IMHO, they are evil--they are willing to use coercive force (even violence) to get their way, whether or not the issue concerns life or death. Maybe we libertarians need to accept that our philosophy is hampered by the fact that it is a good and moral way of living, and that most people simply aren't good or moral. (If you don't like the word evil, substitute primitive. There's really little difference.) I think that the vast majority of the world's problems are caused by the fact that the majority of human beings are little more than primitive, barely-thinking, hairless great apes.

Yeah, that's what we need. It's perfectly acceptable to call people who disagree with you "evil." Even if they're not deliberately, ruthlessly harming people. Even if they're unaware of the harm their actions cause. That's not to say that their actions aren't often evil, but most people are most definitely not evil themselves. Demonizing the opposition is soooooo much easier than trying to understand why they think the way they do, and trying to change that.

|2.25.05 @ 8:42PM|#

Yeah, that's what we need. It's perfectly acceptable to call people who disagree with you "evil." Even if they're not deliberately, ruthlessly harming people. Even if they're unaware of the harm their actions cause.

What, the city didn't know that using eminent domain would constitute forcing someone out of his/her home? Or maybe it was just an accident?

Funny, then, that they took the case to the Supreme Court in order to succeed at taking away someone's home.

|2.25.05 @ 9:15PM|#

Hey, Some of us think and aren't all that hairless either!

|2.26.05 @ 12:04AM|#

Hey, for some reason, every time I read "eminent domain" I keep thinking "Eminem domain," so here's one from the ED point of view:

"Lose Your House" by Eminem Domain

(speaking)
Look...
If you had one shot
One opportunity
To seize everything you ever wanted
Through eminent domain
Would you grab it?
Or just let it slip?
Yo...

In New London ... in Connectikitty
Homeowners are weak, but City Hall is heavy
And it can taste increased tax revenue already
And that's gotta be better for the public benefitty

The State's right to seize propitty
Goes back to King John
Until the Magna Carta barons wrote some restrictions down
But that old crowd, now, it ain't so loud, wow
Civic progress is chokin'! Your rights need to be broken -- now!
The clock's run out! Time's up! Over! Blaow!

That's today's reality, might as well fight gravity
Oh, there goes Sue Kelo, she's
Stoked, she's so mad, but she
Won't give up that easy
No, she won't have it
Her ol' back's to the ropes
It don't matter, poor dope
She knows that, 'cuz she's broke
The deck's so stacked, and she knows it
Might as well move to a mobile home
And stop givin' her crap to the guvamint, yo
This whole "rights" shit
We can capture your home, shit,and it's legal! Sic passim!

(chorus)
You're gonna...
Lose your house! Face the music! You've blown it!
You think you "own" it, but you better let it go, go!
You only get one shot -- now the city needs its chance to grow
So with impunity, we can fuck your life up, yo...

(speaking)
We can grab anything we take a shine to, man...

|2.26.05 @ 12:36AM|#

Stevo, that was hilarious!

Eminem is no fan of the government. I know that he probably isn't libertarian enough to earn a secret decoder ring from this crowd, but I like him nonetheless.

|2.26.05 @ 1:05AM|#

In honor of Stevo's magnificent rap, I present my own attempt at parody:

"So sez me" by Eminent Domain"

2 trailer park girls go move somewhere else, move somewhere else, move somewhere else,
2 trailer park girls go move somewhere else, move somewhere else, move somewhere else,

Guess who's back? Back again,
ED's back, tell a friend,

We'll be creating a monster,
Cuz nobody wants to see houses no more,
They want Pfizer, you're chopped liver,
Well if you want Pfizer then this is what I'll give ya,
A low property assessment mixed with some bad projections,
Some tax revenues that'll jumpstart this economy faster than a
New business when I don't mind my own business
When the home owners just aren't cooperating,
When I'm seizing their homes cuz they're so aggravating,
You held out this long now stop complaining
Cuz I'm back I'm on a deadline and confiscating,
I know that you got a deed dumb lady
But your low tax bill's a problem that's complicating,
So the committee won't let you be,
Or let you keep your home so let me see,
We tried to kick you out illegally
But you're home ain't empty as I see,
So come and sell, give it to Trump,
Fuck that, get the hell out and go somwhere else,
Cuz this shit's about to get heavy,
We ain't settling this lawsuit--FUCK YOU OWNERS!

Now this looks like some blight to me
So everybody give your homes to me
Cuz we need a little tax money please
Your house will be so empty, so sez me!

|2.26.05 @ 2:04AM|#

Oh crap, thoreau! If this was a rap battle, I think I just got served!

That was pretty good.

OK, punk, now it's "on" ... :)

|2.26.05 @ 2:09AM|#

P.S. When I say "pretty good" I mean "pretty effing awesome."

|2.26.05 @ 2:35AM|#

Get up, get, get, get down!
Amendment 5 is a joke in your town! - Private Enemy

Word!

Kevin
(so white it hurts!)

|2.26.05 @ 2:46AM|#

Just to be a perfectionist I'm going to edit my rap:

"So sez me" by Eminent Domain

2 trailer park girls kicked out of their home, out of their home, out of their home,
2 trailer park girls kicked out of their home, out of their home, out of their home,

Guess who's back? Back again,
ED's back, tell a friend,

I've created a monster,
Cuz nobody wants to see houses no more,
They want Pfizer, you're chopped liver,
Well if you want Pfizer then this is what I'll give ya,
A low assessment mixed with a weak premise,
Some tax revenues that'll jumpstart this economy faster than a
New business when I don't mind my own business
When the home owners just aren't cooperating,
When I'm seizing their houses they're so aggravating,
You held out this long now stop complaining,
Cuz I'm back I'm on a deadline and confiscating,
I know that you got a deed dumb lady,
But your low tax is a problem that's complicating,
So the committee won't let you be,
Or let you keep your home so let me see,
We tried to kick you out illegally
Your home must be empty so sez me,
So come on sell, give it to Trump,
Fuck that, get the hell out and go somewhere else,
And get ready cuz this shit's about to get heavy,
We ain't settling this lawsuit--FUCK YOU OWNERS!

Now this looks like some blight to me
So everybody give your homes to me
Cuz we need a little tax money see
Your house must be empty, so sez me!



If I'm going to parody Slim Shady I should at least get it right!

|2.26.05 @ 3:10AM|#

"We Were Americans" by Eminent Domain

(This is a parody of a song that's actually pretty libertarian: It's about the 2nd amendment.)

There's a casino by my house,
They want my front yard to park cars,
I called the police and found out,
Ain't gonna help me when I shout.

A couple of cop cars to take me to jail
There's a billionaire upon my tail
But this time when they dig up my front yard
Got a .357 and a shotgun with me,
These thugs will get shot stealing from me,
Quit wrecking my home, Donald you're gonna see
No profit fooling with me!
In the long run I'm a be the wrong one
You wanna harass when my legal team fights back
Talking about capitalism where was you at
Last month when them bureaucrats invoked their ED
Blight and low tax base
Kiss the crack of my property owner ass
They took away my right to stay home
What I'm supposed to pay them, 10 grand?
Yeah right, they're coming with subpoenas
I'm coming with IJ lawyers
We were Americans


We were Americans, now we're just citizens,
Cannot protect ourselves, where are our houses at?
They took away my house, now I live in the streets,
They ruined my financial health, I'm gonna go vote LP.
We were Americans, now we're just citizens,
No more samaritans, what did we get us in?
You better check your house, see if they've left it there,
Take a look where you lived, this was America,
And now we're just homeless guys.

|2.26.05 @ 3:20AM|#

On a serious note, if the ability to generate more tax revenue becomes sufficient justification for stealing homes, consider this scenario:

The government of a small suburb is approached by some businessmen. The businessmen point out that every single square mile of this small suburb could be more profitably used as commercial space.

So all of the homes and apartments will be claimed. Everything will be converted to commercial space except a small area that will be devoted to luxury homes. Some of those homes will go to the Mayor, City Council, and a handful of other officials. The rest will become the official residences of the businessmen. The entire electorate of this suburb will consist of the politicians and businessmen.

What's to stop this if the Supremes rule that enhancing the tax base is good enough reason to claim homes? Tiny suburbs could easily become personal fiefdoms. OK, maybe they already are, but the arrangement could be made even more blatant.

|2.26.05 @ 9:58AM|#

See what I mean, feudal! With a battery of attorneys like Horton making such arguments(and politicians, courts, etc buying them), the average person effectively has no rights over anything desirable to someone with more clout. We may as well begin conveying Lordships upon wealthy developers.

I think that there are other ramifications of these cases as well. Sentimentality aside, who's to say that a person will find as nice a home as they already own for the price given by the city? Why should their standard of living go down. At the very least, brand new homes should be constructed for people in these cases.

To quote a case I'm personally familiar with: The motel is stay at in Hollywood, Fl is being threatened by eminent domain. The woman who owns and operates the motel enjoys her beachside home, and derives her income from operating the motel. She bought the property relatively cheaply, and imporved it into a successful business. A multi-million dollar luxury condo complex is being constructed next door, and the future residents need parking. The concern building the condos wants to bulldoze the motel, and is using the city of Hollywood to seize the property. The point? the Motel owner loses her home, and her livelihood so someone else can turn a profit.

|2.26.05 @ 1:07PM|#

If the howeowners lose their case then it will just be further support for my left-libertarian stance: Our government exists, first and foremost, to advance the interests of the super-wealthy. Social programs and redistribution are just the bread and circuses needed to trick people into thinking that their leaders are benevolent. But first and foremost the government exists to help the wealthy do things that they can't do without the use of force.

|2.26.05 @ 10:47PM|#

I've been following this issue, though not terribly closely for the last few months. There's an idea I'm surprised I've never seen advanced: if a bona fide, unsolicited offer is made on a property, that offer should be the basis for the assessed value of the property.

A while back, Trump offered some lady a million bucks for her house (I think it was valued about $250,000) so he could expand his casino. It seems to me that the assessed value of her property should then be $1,000,000 (or perhaps $900,000, to weight things a little bit toward the current property owner.) The lady could either take the million bucks or pay the taxes. Is it un-libertarian of me to think that this is a fair arrangement?

I understand that this is not exactly what is going on in these particular cases before the court, but it seems like this a fair, market-based approach to dealing with this sort of situation.

|2.26.05 @ 11:54PM|#

So, anyone should be able to walk up and force you to pay higher taxes?

Yeah, it's pretty un-libertarian to call that fair. Of course, if you disagree and happen to own a house, explain this logic and tell your local and state government know that I want $8 billion for your place...

|2.27.05 @ 2:44AM|#

That's why he specified a bona fide offer--the increased taxes would only kick in if he actually could sell it for the $8 billion. As in, his response under his regime to your offer would be "sure, that sounds like a great deal. I'll take the money and build a palace somewhere. You can pay the $8 billion and the taxes on it." But that's not the sticky case. Suppose I want to hurt someone else. Then I just have to figure out exactly how much I can offer that still makes it too much trouble to move. Only raises taxes a little bit, but still bloody annoying.

|2.27.05 @ 9:23AM|#

When I first came up to Connecticut as a starving grad student, I almost moved to New London because the rents were so cheap (by Connecticut standards). Suzette Kelo and her neighbors stumbled upon practically the only place in the state where a non-millionaire could afford to buy a house with a beautiful water view. With the money the city is offering her, she'll be lucky to afford a three-room dump in a crack neighborhood.

Roger, how is your increased-tax plan fair? You're still saying that a rich person has the right to take the property of a poor person pretty much whenever they want.

|2.27.05 @ 11:19AM|#

It 's enough to make me want to get elected mayor so I can target the former mayor's house, along with the city council. I know you can't fit a shopping mall on a single house property, but the city could use some more pocket parks in your nieghborhood (and where ever you happen to move to next).

People in general may not be evil, but I sure am. ; )

|2.27.05 @ 11:40AM|#

If Suzette Kelo cannot afford the taxes on a home with a beautiful water view, I don't think that she's entitled to a home with a beautiful water view. As far as her being poor goes, she certainly wouldn't remain poor under the regime I suggest.

A couple more points:
As Jadaqul points out, it is important to build in an appropriate premium to ward off nuisance offers.

I think taxes in general should be lower, which would make it more difficult for developers/rich folks to leverage home owners from their property.

I think these ED cases in which the government and the developers conspire to lowball the property owners are an outrage.

|2.27.05 @ 12:10PM|#

If Suzette Kelo cannot afford the taxes on a home with a beautiful water view, I don't think that she's entitled to a home with a beautiful water view.

Let me see if I understand you. Taxes are an invention of the government. Kelo could obviously afford the free-market value of her home; otherwise, she wouldn't have been able to buy it. However, you say that not the free market but the GOVERNMENT should decide who can afford to live in various places? How exactly does this qualify as a "libertarian" solution?

|2.27.05 @ 2:48PM|#

Perhaps a few examples would help.

I live in Central Ohio. I have a nice home that I bought for $200k. I live in a nice neighborhood, I like my home a lot.

Scenario 1: A rich guy takes a shine to my property and makes an unsolicited offer of $225k.

My choices:
Decline the offer, and pay taxes on the new valuation of $202,500.
Accept the offer and go to the trouble of finding a little bit nicer home in my neighborhood.
I'd think about it, but I'd probably decline the offer and pay the extra $25 in taxes each year.

Scenario 2: A rich guy takes a shine to my property and makes an unsolicited offer of $250k.

My choices:
Decline the offer, and pay taxes (an extra $250) on the new valuation of $225,500.
Accept the offer, go to the trouble of finding a little bit nicer home in my neighborhood, and use the rest of the proceeds to pay my kid's undergrad tuition to Ohio State.
I'd definitely accept this offer and let the rich guy pay the taxes on $225k.

Scenario 2: Donald Trump takes a shine to my property and makes an unsolicited offer of $1 million.

My choices:
Decline the offer, and pay taxes on the new valuation of $900,000.
Accept the offer, buy a $300,000 home with my $800,000 windfall and retire - but not before telling DT that I'll kiss his ass at Broad and High, at high noon, and give him half an hour to draw a crowd.
I'd definitely accept this offer and let the rich guy pay the taxes on $900k.


I think a 10% premium is workable, though I'd go for 20% as well. Also, I would advocate a minimum premium of $20k or $30k to protect folks at the lower end of the price scale.

|2.27.05 @ 2:57PM|#

Scnario 2 should read:
"...Decline the offer, and pay taxes (an extra $250) on the new valuation of $225,000."

|2.27.05 @ 3:52PM|#

Roger-
But in both scenarios, you're still ignoring the rights of people who just want to be left alone. One of Kelo's neighbors is an old lady living in the house where she was born during the first World War. For this lady, especially with the rather short amount of time she can reasonably expect to have on this Earth, what she wants is not more money; she wants to live out her few remaining years in the house where she's always lived. Exactly what gives you, or Donald Trump, or the government the right to decide that this lady MUST value a chunk of money more than the right to live out the rest of her life in peace? Don't be such a solipsist as to assume that since YOU would be happy to give up your house for X amount of dollars, EVERYBODY must feel the same way.

|2.27.05 @ 3:56PM|#

All I want is for her to pay taxes based on the market value of her house.

|2.27.05 @ 4:03PM|#

"Market value" refers not just to how much someone is willing to pay, but also to how much the owner is willing to sell for. Basically, your system would amount to legalized extortion; a poor person could only keep his or her property until someone with more money comes along and offers a price that would drive the taxes up to the point where the poor victim is forced to leave. So I ask again, how is this a "libertarian" solution that will make society as a whole more free? All your plan seems to do is make government richer, and give the rich the power to run roughshod over the lives of the poor.

Brendan Perez|2.27.05 @ 4:26PM|#

Roger,

Would it work that way for other "value" based taxes like those assessed on motor vehicles based on MSRP?

Scenario:
You find a 69 Mustang in decent shape, you and your son/daughter/best friend decide it would be a great restoration project. You buy it for $6000 (I don't know what the actual value/going price is, just inserting a number). You and your restoration partner(s) spend $11,000 and countless weekends and holidays restoring the car to "mint" condition.
The DMV values the car at the $6,000 you paid for it and taxes accordingly.

I come along and offer $100,000 for the car. Does this mean I have to either sell you the car for the $100,000 or I get to pay taxes on the newly assessed $100,000 value of my car?

Sounds like a load of crap to me. In this example, the car may have significant sentimental value or have hard-to-reproduce "hand-built" customizations. Either of these, combined with the time put into the restoration, put a value on the car that I, the owner, find to be intangible.

Your scenario allows an outside "investor" to basically decide a persons taxes based solely on offers and not completed sales. This allows anyone with some money to force me to sell something I don't want to or face significantly higher taxes.

Count me out of this version of "libertarianism".

|2.27.05 @ 4:30PM|#

"Does this mean I have to either sell you the car for the $100,000 or I get to pay taxes on the newly assessed $100,000 value of my car?"

Should read:
"Does this mean you have to either sell me the car for the $100,000 or you get to pay taxes on the newly assessed $100,000 value of the car?

|2.27.05 @ 4:40PM|#

[em]"Market value" refers not just to how much someone is willing to pay, but also to how much the owner is willing to sell for. [/em]

Wrong. In a singular case like this, market value is the highest amount that anyone is willing to pay.

[em]Basically, your system would amount to legalized extortion;[/em]

No, it's requiring them to pay taxes based on the market value of their property.

[em]a poor person[/em]

In any of these cases, the "poor" person would be significantly enriched. You go into a neighborhood where the average house runs $60k and start offering people $90k you'll get bowled over by the horde beating a path to your door.

[em]
could only keep his or her property until someone with more money comes along and offers a price that would drive the taxes up to the point where the poor victim is forced to leave. [/em]


If your heart bleeds for this woman, you can underbid the developer for the property, rent the house back to her and pay the difference in taxes until she passes away, and then flip the property back to the developer at a tidy little profit.

[em]So I ask again, how is this a "libertarian" solution that will make society as a whole more free? [/em]

I believe the market should govern as much as possible, including the tax valuations of property.
I earlier posted that I believe that the general level taxes should be lower, and if this were so it would significantly reduce the leverage of any parties interested in buying her land.

I wonder if this "poor" woman is a member of the AARP. I wonder what her take on the SS issue is.
I'd bet dollars to donuts that she has no objection to others paying taxes to support her retirement.

[em]All your plan seems to do is make government richer, and give the rich the power to run roughshod over the lives of the poor.[/em]

Again I'll refer you to my remark about general tax levels. If the tax levels are low, and the premium is reasonable, the buyers are going to have to pay through the nose. If the owner doesn't want the windfall, fine, just pay the damn taxes.

|2.27.05 @ 4:49PM|#

Roger Shrubber's take on the market value of a home reminds me of a dialogue on 24 between the hero and one of the villains: The hero (Jack) has a computer chip with data identifying the prime culprit behind a terrorist attack. The villain's thugs have captured Jack, and the villain decides to try the soft approach first. So he offers to pay Jack a large sum of money in exchange for the location of the chip.

Jack: It's not for sale.

Kingsley (the villain): If somebody wants to buy it it's for sale.

Jack still refuses, so Kingsley orders his thugs to torture Jack.

That's a little bit like Roger Shrubber's take on things: First offer money in exchange for the house. If that doesn't work, then send in the government to inflict pain (higher taxes) on the owner until he or she agrees to sell. And it's all based on his premise that if somebody wants to buy something then it should be made available. Well, you can't always get what you want. Not everything is available to you. Deal with it.

|2.27.05 @ 6:05PM|#

If you are going to have property taxes, then there must be some way to assess the value of the property to be taxed. "What the market is willing to pay" seems like one good way to do this.

"If it's not for sale, it does not have a value" - a 'la Thoreau, would mean it would have zero value, and therefore zero taxes, unless it had a "for Sale" sign in the front yard.

|2.27.05 @ 6:17PM|#

Trey-

Well, leaving aside all of the many objections that one could raise against property taxes (I realize that some form of taxation will be inevitable, since even Libertopia will need cops and soldiers and courts), if property taxes must exist then they should at least be predictable. If your taxes increase every time somebody wants to buy your house then that makes it harder for a person to plan her retirement.

I know, I know, we should all save enough money from an early age so we can retire wealthy, so it's the property owner's fault that she can't pay the taxes. Still, it might be easier to make those retirement plans if property taxes are predictable.

|2.27.05 @ 6:26PM|#

I agree that it should be predictable, but it should also reflect, as much as possible, the market value of the property. (I find it odd to be arguing for taxation of any kind, actually) Trying to have a primo piece of property, on one hand, but then claiming that it isn't worth much for tax purposes (I know, not the case here at all), doesn't seem right.

|2.27.05 @ 6:28PM|#

My disagreement was with what I saw as the argument that "if it is not for sale, it cannot be valued."

|2.27.05 @ 6:31PM|#

BTW, I would much rather see "fees" paid for the cost of services received rather than "taxes" paid on what (ultimately) some bureaucrat says your property is worth.

|2.27.05 @ 7:18PM|#

If the system that Roger Shrubber is talking about were what we actually used,eventually we would all be leasing from the government, or a few large landbarons. I also makes all ownership fleeting. You could not be certain of retaining anything but cash until death. Perhaps not even that.

To me the actual market value is what the item sold for. I find it troubling that people need perpetually escalating incomes to retain what they already own.

Like Trey, I think I'd favor an honest bill for services rendered.

|2.27.05 @ 11:01PM|#

"If your taxes increase every time somebody wants to buy your house..."

This should read: "If your taxes increase every time somebody wants to buy your house AT A PREMIUM ..."

If you're paraphrasing my position, I think that's a pretty important phrase to leave out.

|2.27.05 @ 11:19PM|#

"...eventually we would all be leasing from the government, or a few large landbarons."

I think this and the other reactions like it are a bit hysterical. As long as property ownership is not a qualification for voting, I don't think property ownership will become too concentrated.

|2.27.05 @ 11:48PM|#

I don't know Roger, follow your argument to its logical end.

In my own state, there are people wealthy enough to buy entire neighborhoods, if not towns. Your idea would allow these individuals or corporations to contol huge parcels of land either by buying them outright(which is fine) or simply bidding up a person's taxes until they are forced to sell, or have their property seized by the state and auctioned off to the highest bidder. It would only take a slight percentage increase to cause a snowball effect for most people. You also forget that the state will take a hearty chunk of the profit gain if the person sells their home.

Obviously, the government would gain from such an approach, but supporting a system which favors the state and a financial oligarchy over the individual is hardly a libertarian principle. Free market should encompass the right not to sell.

"How to squeeze the most tax dollars" should not be the guiding priciple of government. It all too often is anyway.

|2.28.05 @ 5:16AM|#

I still think Roger's proposal is at least reasonable, if not necessarily a good idea. If you accept the premise (that we ought to tax people based on a fair market valuation of their property), then it seems like a proposal that makes the valuation more accurate is a good idea. Namely:

If I think my house is worth $100,000, and no one thinks it's worth more, it should be taxed at $100,000.

If someone else wants to buy it for $150,000, and I sell it to him, that means I think it's worth $100,000, and he thinks it's worth $150,000. It's taxed according to that market value of $150,000.

If someone wants to buy it for $500,000, and I refuse to sell it, that tells you
1 He thinks it's worth at least $500,000, and
2 I think it's worth more than $500,000--otherwise I'd sell it to him. In this case, the market value is at least $500,000, and it should be taxed accordingly.

Now, I don't think this makes Roger's proposal a good idea. What it does do is show the fundamental absurdity of the property tax system as a whole--this is what you would need to do to make it consistent and coherent. If you don't want this, then you, like me, don't really want a property tax system.

|2.28.05 @ 11:33PM|#

I don't know if anyone's still reading this, but I would like to say a couple more things.

Regarding the financial oligarchy - landbarons - the rich will corner the market objections: I just don't buy it. If somebody wanted to corner the real estate market by overpaying for real estate, they could be doing that now. And they aren't.

Regarding developers/rich people "stealing" choice real estate: I'm OK with that. Jennifer asked earlier what's libertarian about it. 1) The taxes would be closely tied to the property's market value. 2) Everyone, no matter how pathetic, should be equal before the tax laws.

Regarding the priceless objects/family heirlooms arguments: These do trouble me. I'm sure that there are plenty of rich SOB's that would buy Brendan's Mustang out from under him in a heartbeat. Perhaps there should be a fee paid up front (say, the greater of $25k or 5 years of the tax difference) to the original owner just for the privilege of making the unsolicited offer. This way, if Brendan didn't want to part with his Mustang for $100k, he could at least pay the taxes on it for several years. I imagine there would still be someone out there who would offer Brendan $1 million for the Mustang, in which case I hope Brendan could take some comfort in the million dollars.