3 ms·
> There is something fundamentally wrong with taxing an absence of income. Isn't the plan to eventually replace all fixed assets with rental assets? Thus solvi
by brador 11y ago
> There is something fundamentally wrong with taxing an absence of income.
Isn't the plan to eventually replace all fixed assets with rental assets? Thus solving this problem.
- mamon 11y agoSo, are we trying build some communist utopia where private ownership of the building is forbidden, all land belongs to government which rents it to a citizens?
- brador 11y agoYes, that is where we are heading. Not communism though, more like corporate ownership of everything. That is, corporations own the property since they exist forever, humans rent them, since their existence is transient. Remote working, minimalism, cheap flights, universal passport, home rental through Airbnb, Uber for travel. The pieces exist, they just need a little time to work through the system.
- MC7447a 11y ago> So, are we trying build some communist utopia where private ownership of the building is forbidden, No, the building is private property. > all land belongs to government which rents it to a citizens? Yes. The idea is that taxing land (not: buildings or property!) is less distortionary than taxing income or consumption. Hyper-capitalistic Hong Kong operates on that model. Property is expensive, but income tax is around 15% and consumption/sales tax is 0%.
- schoen 11y agoMany advocates of land-value taxation have proposed entirely replacing all other forms of taxation with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_tax