5 ms·

1. Taxes on companies could be adjusted to compensate for the introduction of a land use tax. 2. A primary residence is where you live most of the year. To hav

1. Taxes on companies could be adjusted to compensate for the introduction of a land use tax. 2. A primary residence is where you live most of the year. To have any property qualify you would need to spend more than 6 months in a year within a country, and would also need to specify which of the properties you own in that country is your primary residence. Problem solved.

jrs235 11y ago
*2b and only .25 acres of land would be exempt. (Of some other generally agreed amount)
- eru 11y ago
  No exemption necessary. Just eg pay out all the land value tax as a basic income. And automatically anyone sitting on less than the average amount of land (in terms of value, not size), will get a net income. People sitting on more, will make a net payment.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    Let's not make it unnecessarily complicated. Basic income is a good idea on its own, but mix it with land use taxation and you get into all sorts of problems. For example, how do handle a rented block of flats, would your land usage tax/income vary depending on how many tenants were currently renting in that block of flats? Tax exemption for primary residences (under a certain size) + basic income is a far more flexible arrangement, and you lose none of the benefits of determining basic income on land use.
    - eru 11y ago
      > [...] would your land usage tax/income vary depending on how many tenants were currently renting in that block of flats? It's a land value tax, not land usage tax. So it would be independent on what you do with the land. (Basically it would be driven by the opportunity costs of what someone else could be doing with the land instead.) > Tax exemption for primary residences (under a certain size) + basic income is a far more flexible arrangement, and you lose none of the benefits of determining basic income on land use. Why? That's much more complicated, and full of loopholes. I do agree that tying land value tax to financing basic income is only potentially a good idea, not necessarily.
humanrebar 11y ago
But why not just tax profits from sales instead of fiddling around and implicitly creating special interest groups?
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  Taxing sales doesn't tackle the misuse of land that has already been sold.
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    Sure it does. It discourages using land for speculation. If the appreciation curve flattens out, some people buying property as an investment will look to other markets that don't impact the standard of living so directly.
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      What about the land people already own?

jrs235 11y ago

*2b and only .25 acres of land would be exempt. (Of some other generally agreed amount)

eru 11y ago
No exemption necessary. Just eg pay out all the land value tax as a basic income. And automatically anyone sitting on less than the average amount of land (in terms of value, not size), will get a net income. People sitting on more, will make a net payment.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  Let's not make it unnecessarily complicated. Basic income is a good idea on its own, but mix it with land use taxation and you get into all sorts of problems. For example, how do handle a rented block of flats, would your land usage tax/income vary depending on how many tenants were currently renting in that block of flats? Tax exemption for primary residences (under a certain size) + basic income is a far more flexible arrangement, and you lose none of the benefits of determining basic income on land use.
  - eru 11y ago
    > [...] would your land usage tax/income vary depending on how many tenants were currently renting in that block of flats? It's a land value tax, not land usage tax. So it would be independent on what you do with the land. (Basically it would be driven by the opportunity costs of what someone else could be doing with the land instead.) > Tax exemption for primary residences (under a certain size) + basic income is a far more flexible arrangement, and you lose none of the benefits of determining basic income on land use. Why? That's much more complicated, and full of loopholes. I do agree that tying land value tax to financing basic income is only potentially a good idea, not necessarily.

humanrebar 11y ago

But why not just tax profits from sales instead of fiddling around and implicitly creating special interest groups?

ZenoArrow 11y ago
Taxing sales doesn't tackle the misuse of land that has already been sold.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  Sure it does. It discourages using land for speculation. If the appreciation curve flattens out, some people buying property as an investment will look to other markets that don't impact the standard of living so directly.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    What about the land people already own?