> Having shelter is a pre-requisite to existing. That's why I said land instead of property. Land can't be created or destroyed, so there's no need to provide

> Having shelter is a pre-requisite to existing. That's why I said land instead of property. Land can't be created or destroyed, so there's no need to provide incentives for it, or worry about disincentivizing it. > Taxing people that own $10m houses in SF at the same elevated rate as a homeowner in a poor rural region would be economic assassination. I'm not sure this would be a problem. Increasing the land tax brings down the property value, since the value reflects some multiple of the rents you can extract from it, and so the tax would naturally be corrected. Of course, all this depends on having a good system to assess land. I'm in agreement about healthcare; too much time is spent on discussing single payer vs private etc., and not enough on bringing down the costs, that would be there regardless of the system we use.