4 ms·
Was your friend's name Henry George? :p https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George
by sooheon 7y ago
Was your friend's name Henry George? :p
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George
- jacquesm 7y agoNo, Eckart Wintzen. https://ex-tax.com/ https://ex-tax.com/
- tda 7y agoWow, I have had exactly this idea and it makes so much sense I was surprised I never heard anyone else come to this conclusion yet, but finally I seem to have found one. My idea in a nutshell: tax only non renewable or finite resources and not labour Finite resources include - land use (be it housing, leisure or agriculture though desirable locations should have higher taxes) - resources (metals, minerals) - fossil fuels Not to be taxed: - labour - wealth (having money has no environmental impact. It's the spending that matters) - added value (get rid of VAT) I feel like all tax systems are based on what is easy to be taxed, but I have never heard a good argument on why e.g. income should be taxed, but environmental impact not