2 ms·

You could simply introduce more taxes. For example, one interesting idea is a universal land tax - with more expensive/desirable land being taxed much more - th

by tomp 10y ago

You could simply introduce more taxes. For example, one interesting idea is a universal land tax - with more expensive/desirable land being taxed much more - the idea being that there's no fundamental reason why the right to use a piece of land would belong to one citizen and not the other just by the virtue of their birth. So those who want to use scarce land (wealthy people, corporations) would be paying rents to the rest of the society. That would quite quickly restore inequality back from inherited inequality to just meritocratic inequality (people who produce more would be richer).

refurb 10y ago
not the other just by the virtue of their birth What makes you think most land is owned through birthright? Any stats to back that up? I would assume most land was purchased. And if you levy a big tax on property, be prepared for the value of that property to drop dramatically. Money flows freely from one asset to another. If land becomes unattractive, those dollars will just go elsewhere.
- tomp 10y ago
  > What makes you think most land is owned through birthright? Any stats to back that up? I would assume most land was purchased. Purchased from whom? I would imagine a lot of land in the most desirable locations (cities etc) are owned by private individuals or family trusts/companies, so they have been/will be inherited (even if the owners change in between). And if it's owned by a corporation, I guess the same logic could apply. > And if you levy a big tax on property, be prepared for the value of that property to drop dramatically. Money flows freely from one asset to another. If land becomes unattractive, those dollars will just go elsewhere. Yeah, that's kind of the point. Land used for investment is the purest form of unproductive rent-seeking.
  - mason240 10y ago
    So no actual stats, just your gut feelings about how you think things work.
  - refurb 10y ago
    Living on a piece of land is rent seeking? I don't think you know what that word means.
    - prutschman 10y ago
      Land being lived on by its owner is being used to live on, not for investment.

by tomp 10y ago

refurb 10y ago

not the other just by the virtue of their birth What makes you think most land is owned through birthright? Any stats to back that up? I would assume most land was purchased. And if you levy a big tax on property, be prepared for the value of that property to drop dramatically. Money flows freely from one asset to another. If land becomes unattractive, those dollars will just go elsewhere.

tomp 10y ago
> What makes you think most land is owned through birthright? Any stats to back that up? I would assume most land was purchased. Purchased from whom? I would imagine a lot of land in the most desirable locations (cities etc) are owned by private individuals or family trusts/companies, so they have been/will be inherited (even if the owners change in between). And if it's owned by a corporation, I guess the same logic could apply. > And if you levy a big tax on property, be prepared for the value of that property to drop dramatically. Money flows freely from one asset to another. If land becomes unattractive, those dollars will just go elsewhere. Yeah, that's kind of the point. Land used for investment is the purest form of unproductive rent-seeking.
- mason240 10y ago
  So no actual stats, just your gut feelings about how you think things work.
- refurb 10y ago
  Living on a piece of land is rent seeking? I don't think you know what that word means.
  - prutschman 10y ago
    Land being lived on by its owner is being used to live on, not for investment.