Tax the Rich (after they take your property)
Here's a disturbing story I've been following the last week. The limits of "eminent domain" are being tested in Connecticut, as the town of New London is attempting to use it to acquire private property for the "public good." What is this public good? Not a road or school, but a private commercial development, including a hotel.
If you're puzzled as to how the government can force you to sell your home so that someone can put up a Marriott in its place, so is Justice Scalia. The case is in front of the Supreme Court, and arguments from the city and from some of the other justices are alarming, to say the least. The basic argument is that it is in the public good to put the land to a different use if it could garner more tax revenue for the government.
The invaluable Jeff Jacoby gives us the following quotes:
This is startling. What this precedent would mean is that if Bill Gates would like to move, he doesn't need to limit his search to houses that are actually for sale. He can just pick one, regardless of whether the owner likes the idea. After all, if the city has an income tax, the increase in revenues from having Gates replace you or me as owner of that property would be "significant."
Anyone who has seen Dr. Zhivago probably remembers the gut-wrenching confiscation of Zhivago's house "for the public good." How does the New London proposal differ? The New London proposal would create jobs and generate tax revenue. Certainly that's more important than a few private homes. And Dr. Zhivago's house was big; certainly it was being put to better good sheltering a dozen families instead of just one.
Well, you might say, Dr. Zhivago was never compensated for his loss, while New London is committed to paying the current owners a fair price.
Then let me offer a more brutal analogy. A woman is raped. The rapist should go to jail. But what if he leaves $100 on the nightstand before he leaves? Does that make it a legitimate transaction? Is it OK that he forcibly took something from her as long as he paid her what he thought it was worth?
Well, you might say, there's no public good there, so it fails the test. So let's extend this perverse logic so that it does fit the test. A gang rape is suddenly OK, so long as they pay her afterwards, because it satisfies the needs of the many.
Obviously, the needs of the many can never be invoked to violate one's person. Less obvious is why it's being invoked to violate one's property.
If you're puzzled as to how the government can force you to sell your home so that someone can put up a Marriott in its place, so is Justice Scalia. The case is in front of the Supreme Court, and arguments from the city and from some of the other justices are alarming, to say the least. The basic argument is that it is in the public good to put the land to a different use if it could garner more tax revenue for the government.
The invaluable Jeff Jacoby gives us the following quotes:
"For example, a Motel 6," O'Connor says. "A city thinks, 'If we had a Ritz-Carlton, we'd get higher taxes.' Is that OK?"
"Yes, that's OK," Horton [representing the city] replies.
Justice Antonin Scalia: "You can take from A and give it to B, if B pays more in taxes?"
Horton: "Yes, if it's a significant amount."
This is startling. What this precedent would mean is that if Bill Gates would like to move, he doesn't need to limit his search to houses that are actually for sale. He can just pick one, regardless of whether the owner likes the idea. After all, if the city has an income tax, the increase in revenues from having Gates replace you or me as owner of that property would be "significant."
Anyone who has seen Dr. Zhivago probably remembers the gut-wrenching confiscation of Zhivago's house "for the public good." How does the New London proposal differ? The New London proposal would create jobs and generate tax revenue. Certainly that's more important than a few private homes. And Dr. Zhivago's house was big; certainly it was being put to better good sheltering a dozen families instead of just one.
Well, you might say, Dr. Zhivago was never compensated for his loss, while New London is committed to paying the current owners a fair price.
Then let me offer a more brutal analogy. A woman is raped. The rapist should go to jail. But what if he leaves $100 on the nightstand before he leaves? Does that make it a legitimate transaction? Is it OK that he forcibly took something from her as long as he paid her what he thought it was worth?
Well, you might say, there's no public good there, so it fails the test. So let's extend this perverse logic so that it does fit the test. A gang rape is suddenly OK, so long as they pay her afterwards, because it satisfies the needs of the many.
Obviously, the needs of the many can never be invoked to violate one's person. Less obvious is why it's being invoked to violate one's property.
Comments