Is nothing in our life private now? What about the need for privacy. Random ppl shouldn't know your financial holdings. We have a real lack of privacy now and easy access to the public records.
There is public benefit to knowing the beneficial owner of real estate. It is the physical assets of a community and the community benefits from knowing who ultimately owns those assets.
If you tax land properly, it doesn't matter who's the owner of the estate as long as the state can reach them or start a process to claw back the estate for nonpayment of taxes.
Ultimately, this appears to be yet another step in the direction of deep control of society over wealth and the people who have it.
Which, if you ever want to have anything of your own or be better than median in some way should concern you greatly.
Some people will not rest until you’re poorer and more miserable than them, no matter what. Even if it means hurting themselves (and everyone else) to do it.
Crabs in a bucket mentality is deeply destructive and dangerous.
If property taxes don't vary based on who owns them, but rather by some standardized valuation, then why does it matter if it is owned by an LLC, a Corp, or some individual? The tax is the same and needs to be paid regardless. The land will need to be used effectively, or it's a cost on a balance sheet somewhere coming out of someone's pocket.
The 'utility based value' is always the same then, correct? And the incentive to use it effectively is the same too, correct?
The 'value' of these kinds of rule changes is because, eventually, the tax WILL be different based on who owns it. 'Good people' (based on the current political winds) of course being given good rates, and 'Bad people' getting punitive rates or having it outright seized.
Do you believe that wealth is an innate right no matter the societal cost -- that people should be able to own such things or amounts of things that it is to the detriment of those around them?
Wouldn't any detriment be related to the land/property itself, and hence that should be addressed?
For instance, if the owner is doing something obnoxious on a parcel in town, the town can put a lien on it, or condemn it. Then the problem is fixed and that parcel is taken away.
If someone is monopolizing hotels (say) in an area, the local county or state can pass a tax on hotels that make it less desirable to do that. Or start taking on anti monopoly action in the hotel industry in the area.
If that same person owns a parcel in another state, how do those two things relate? Or say one hotel in another state?
Unless someone also wants to go after that other parcel or property, anyway, as a prize.
I don't follow you. Wealth is ownership of resources. You are saying 'if the resources are a problem, take them away' which is saying 'remove the wealth'.
I'm saying if a specific resource is a problem due to how it is being used (per a general rule or principle that would be applied generally), then take it away after due process based on that rule or principle. Who owns it shouldn't matter, frankly. If it does, that is corruption - regardless if that person is rich or poor.
Not just because some specific person happens to own it that we don't like for whatever reason right now.
Also known as Article 1, Section 9, or a 'Bill of attainder'.
Aka penalize actual bad behavior equally, not people just because we think they have too much wealth.
That way, if people don't actually create problems, they can have wealth. If they do create problems, wealthy or not, they won't have tools to cause problems.
Something like this argument applies to a lot of privately-created wealth, but not to land. Private ownership of land (and the profits generated by it) is completely philosophically incoherent if you spend a little time thinking about it, starting with the fact that private property rights require that stolen assets be returned and not able to be profited from, but all land is stolen when you trace back far enough, and all land ownership claims are the fruit of the poisoned tree.
The best approach would be one where the government issues long-term leases to parcels of land, but property taxes are an okay-ish alternative if that (or LVTs) aren't feasible. Note that this is already what we do for things like the EM spectrum: the government owns it in the public trust, then leases it with an open bidding process.