4 ms·

I heard about an interesting way to efficiently valuate vastly diverse assets: have the owners valuate them themselves. With the twist that the state has the r

by dubbel 7y ago

I heard about an interesting way to efficiently valuate vastly diverse assets: have the owners valuate them themselves. With the twist that the state has the right to buy the asset at that validation. That incentives the owners to be as precise as possible with their valuation, as they otherwise would either pay too much tax, or run the risk to have to sell property at a loss.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> have the owners valuate them themselves. With the twist that the state has the right to buy the asset at that validation This was used in ancient Athens [1]: "By the procedure known as antidosis a person who was appointed to perform a liturgy could challenge another he considered better able to afford the expense....the challenged person either had to take over the liturgy or to accept an exchange of property with the instigator of the procedure." It was a private system, i.e. the payer and challenger were individual Athenians. Neither party was the state. (If it's done automatically, it's easily gamed. Own a Superfund site? Value it at $1 and put it to the state. Have a buddy in government? Great! They just bought your WeWork shares at a $47bn valuation.) Given the history of civil asset forfeiture in America, we'd want to think twice before enumerating this power to the executive branch. [1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03585522.1992.10408249 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03585522.1992.10...
pmoriarty 7y ago
Who in the government is going to decide which assets to buy from wealthy individuals? This system seems ripe for abuse in the form of the owners overvaluing their assets and having corrupt/coopted government functionaries rubber stamping their purchase (and likely getting rewarded for it in some way by the owners who just made a huge profit at the government's expense).

by dubbel 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> have the owners valuate them themselves. With the twist that the state has the right to buy the asset at that validation This was used in ancient Athens [1]: "By the procedure known as antidosis a person who was appointed to perform a liturgy could challenge another he considered better able to afford the expense....the challenged person either had to take over the liturgy or to accept an exchange of property with the instigator of the procedure." It was a private system, i.e. the payer and challenger were individual Athenians. Neither party was the state. (If it's done automatically, it's easily gamed. Own a Superfund site? Value it at $1 and put it to the state. Have a buddy in government? Great! They just bought your WeWork shares at a $47bn valuation.) Given the history of civil asset forfeiture in America, we'd want to think twice before enumerating this power to the executive branch. [1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03585522.1992.10408249 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03585522.1992.10...

pmoriarty 7y ago

Who in the government is going to decide which assets to buy from wealthy individuals? This system seems ripe for abuse in the form of the owners overvaluing their assets and having corrupt/coopted government functionaries rubber stamping their purchase (and likely getting rewarded for it in some way by the owners who just made a huge profit at the government's expense).