3 ms·
It might be more "economically efficient" whatever that means but it is only taxing a small percentage of wealth owners (those invested in land). I don't see ho
by lumberjack 11y ago
It might be more "economically efficient" whatever that means but it is only taxing a small percentage of wealth owners (those invested in land). I don't see how that is politically viable given that they aren't the only ones benefiting from all that government and society provide.
It seems to me that this only made sense when land was the main form of wealth for any given estate at the time.
- em500 11y ago> It might be more "economically efficient" whatever that means It means it has smaller [deadweight loss from taxation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss) than most other common taxes (which are mainly based on income or transactions).