3 ms·

You need to be careful when dismissing caution about the elderly who have - through whatever means - found themselves living in a valuable property. The followi

by smcl 7y ago

You need to be careful when dismissing caution about the elderly who have - through whatever means - found themselves living in a valuable property. The following are just as likely: - a wealthy individual with many properties who can easily afford a few extra hundred quid a month - someone living just above poverty level in a property in a previously modest area that, thanks to a gentrification, has exploded in value - and would to move out if their tax band was bumped up a bit We cannot just dismiss the plight of the latter simply because we want to disincentivise the former. I'd like to add that the vulnerable (including but not limited to - elderly, long-term unemployed, immigrants, disabled) in the UK have already had to deal with cuts in local services as well as periodically being labelled by the government and the press as lazy or pathetic or scroungers. I'd encourage anyone to resist anything that could be used to further victimize or immiserate them - even if it is just in the form of a casual tweet or comment. Edit: My last paragraph really sounds a little harsh on re-reading. This is because it was meant to be an "as an aside" comment and not accusing Blackstone4 of anything sinister! I'm generally in favour of taxing the rich and powerful.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
I think if someone is in a huge house they're barely using and possibly not even maintaining, there isn't a massive issue with gently incentivising them to move somewhere smaller. There especially isn't an issue with a redistributive land tax rather than a property tax. That would take money from corporate landlords and move it back into the rest of the economy. You have to balance your caution with the reality at the other end - which is people living in slum conditions and/or sheds, or being homeless.
- gdfasfklshg4 7y ago
  And you have to balance your optimism with the fact that your solution will cause lots of old people (who maybe should have downsized 10-15 years ago) to be forced to downsize now and who would then lose the ability to live independently.
- smcl 7y ago
  If it’s a case of seizing unused or poorly maintained mansions from the super-rich and turning them into Council houses then I am on board. But to me it sounded like we were talking about old people living alone in 3-bedroom houses they used to stay with their families
- npongratz 7y ago
  > There especially isn't an issue with a redistributive land tax rather than a property tax. That would take money from corporate landlords and move it back into the rest of the economy. I commend you for being honest about such a tax: it is indeed someone (perhaps those who call themselves "the authorities") taking what is not theirs. Taking it, without permission. I disagree that noble ends can justify such means.

by smcl 7y ago

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago

I think if someone is in a huge house they're barely using and possibly not even maintaining, there isn't a massive issue with gently incentivising them to move somewhere smaller. There especially isn't an issue with a redistributive land tax rather than a property tax. That would take money from corporate landlords and move it back into the rest of the economy. You have to balance your caution with the reality at the other end - which is people living in slum conditions and/or sheds, or being homeless.

gdfasfklshg4 7y ago
And you have to balance your optimism with the fact that your solution will cause lots of old people (who maybe should have downsized 10-15 years ago) to be forced to downsize now and who would then lose the ability to live independently.
smcl 7y ago
If it’s a case of seizing unused or poorly maintained mansions from the super-rich and turning them into Council houses then I am on board. But to me it sounded like we were talking about old people living alone in 3-bedroom houses they used to stay with their families
npongratz 7y ago
> There especially isn't an issue with a redistributive land tax rather than a property tax. That would take money from corporate landlords and move it back into the rest of the economy. I commend you for being honest about such a tax: it is indeed someone (perhaps those who call themselves "the authorities") taking what is not theirs. Taking it, without permission. I disagree that noble ends can justify such means.