4 ms·
That's assuming that a sufficiently detailed inventory to allow appraisal is reasonably possible; and then that the government will pay the costs associated wit
by NovemberWhiskey 7y ago
That's assuming that a sufficiently detailed inventory to allow appraisal is reasonably possible; and then that the government will pay the costs associated with valuing all the assets.
And then don't asset owners end up paying a surtax on their emotional attachment to their property? i.e. the only way I can hold onto something I would never want to sell is by paying a "wealth tax" that is decoupled from its market value.
- razorunreal 7y agoThat seems fair to me because it results in a tax based on how much the property is worth to you specifically. The "value" may be inflated from real market value, but as long as that is true for everyone it doesn't matter. Also if it's too much of a burden to value all these assets, you can list them publicly and let people bid. If you expect the government to protect your ownership rights, I think it's not too much to ask that you list your major assets.
- londons_explore 7y ago>major assets. Such a scheme could also require you to list a value of "all unlisted assets". If you try to hide a gold bar by lumping it in with all your trash, then the government can buy out and auction "all of razorunreal's unlisted assets" as a job jot. Companies would pop up specialising in identifying people with hidden assets to profit from them.
- londons_explore 7y ago> And then don't asset owners end up paying a surtax on their emotional attachment to their property? You always have the option of letting the government buy it from you for your declared value, and then buying it back at auction for actual market value, potentially making a profit if the government were wrong.