2 ms·
one could make that argument, and should. If it serves the common good, and there are other opportunities to own land (and of course their are), than we should
by johnmarcus 9y ago
one could make that argument, and should. If it serves the common good, and there are other opportunities to own land (and of course their are), than we should dissallow it as a society. Getting some theoretical tax dollars and giving my son or daughter an opportunity to feel sand in their tows and waves on their chest and salt in their mouth, etc, are for more worthy than some tax dollars. We should not create a society where only the wealthy get to enjoy common properties and delights of the earth.
- chroma 9y agoThis is a strawman. Nobody is arguing in favor of 100% private beaches. Apparently I hold the most extreme view in this thread, and I'm proposing privatizing 2% of the coastline and taxing the hell out of it. The other 98% would remain public. Remember: This proposal would mean millions more for social programs. I think things like education and health care are more important than ensuring everyone's right to access 100% of the entire coastline. (Which isn't even the case today, as the law rarely enforced.)
- sedachv 9y ago> Remember: This proposal would mean millions more for social programs. Why not just skip the middleman and raise capital gains and estate taxes? Also what would keep the 2% landowners from paying lobbyists and politicians to lower the coastline taxes, like they have paid to lower capital gains and estate taxes?
- chroma 9y agoRemember that this is a state policy, so it's pretty easy to keep the wealth out of state and avoid the taxes. California already has the highest capital gains taxes in the US and 2nd-highest in the world, so such tax avoidance is extremely common. Coastline can't be moved or hidden, making it much harder to avoid the tax.