5 ms·

Why tax capital instead if income? The reason to do so is because it reduces inequality and leads to a fairer society.

andi999 6y ago
Well, if you tax potential capital (like house prices), then gentrification is the consequence. Think somebody living in a modest house mixed neighbourhood. Rich ppl buying houses there, property tax shoot so high (because the small house is now worth millions) that the person has to sell. As far as I understand that happened in Vancouver. Not sure if it leads to a fairer society. (of course one could argue it is fair for a not so rich person not to live in a rich area :-) )
- grey-area 6y ago
  Gentrification happens everywhere all the time without high property taxes. I'm not sure it is something we can or should avoid. A little inequality is ok and may function as a driver for growth, a lot of inequality had bad outcomes for everyone, even the rich. I sincerely believe all types of capital should be taxed instead of income, the tax burden doesn't have to change but it should be redistributed a bit. This would also deal with companies like Amazon and Apple who pay very little tax on profits - they'd pay a tex on assets instead like land or cash and pay a larger share.
  - andi999 6y ago
    How would you value the asset and not come up with (almost) arbitrary numbers? Especially since biggest value of google are non material assets (brand name, domain name and customers)
    - grey-area 6y ago
      Every system is subject to gaming of course, but I think taxing assets would make it a little harder for companies and individuals with lots of assets to avoid taxation and would encourage putting money to work. Values for assets are market values, which are arbitrary and every-changing yes, just like income and profit is arbitrary and every-changing but at least values for assets are generally set by third parties, as opposed to the value of profits - the situation could not be much worse than the one at present where large companies choose how much tax to pay by manipulating their books to adjust profit. I don't think companies should be taxed on customers personally, but if they choose to value their brand name at $10m owned by a subsidiary as a tax dodge (as at present), sure they should be taxed on that.
LVTfan 6y ago
Were we to treat Land -- sites, and natural resources, including clean air, clean water, and things like geosynchronous orbits, fisheries, electromagnetic spectrum -- as our COMMON treasure, our source of natural public revenue, instead of something to be privatized, our wealth concentration problem would be much much smaller. Instead, we permit individuals and corporations and trusts to privatize the value and we tax it only very lightly --- they get to keep the lion's share, just as if they made it themselves.
- mythrwy 6y ago
  Another thing worth mentioning is you incentivize efficiency and proper use of physical resources by doing that. And you don't de-incentivize productive labor (as our current tax scheme does to an extent). If all tax were things like use of land, use of aluminum in a can, burning of a unit of fossil fuel instead of "you worked an extra hour or invented something, now you owe a greater percent!" I believe society would become much more innovate and efficient.

Well, if you tax potential capital (like house prices), then gentrification is the consequence. Think somebody living in a modest house mixed neighbourhood. Rich ppl buying houses there, property tax shoot so high (because the small house is now worth millions) that the person has to sell. As far as I understand that happened in Vancouver. Not sure if it leads to a fairer society. (of course one could argue it is fair for a not so rich person not to live in a rich area :-) )

grey-area 6y ago
Gentrification happens everywhere all the time without high property taxes. I'm not sure it is something we can or should avoid. A little inequality is ok and may function as a driver for growth, a lot of inequality had bad outcomes for everyone, even the rich. I sincerely believe all types of capital should be taxed instead of income, the tax burden doesn't have to change but it should be redistributed a bit. This would also deal with companies like Amazon and Apple who pay very little tax on profits - they'd pay a tex on assets instead like land or cash and pay a larger share.
- andi999 6y ago
  How would you value the asset and not come up with (almost) arbitrary numbers? Especially since biggest value of google are non material assets (brand name, domain name and customers)
  - grey-area 6y ago
    Every system is subject to gaming of course, but I think taxing assets would make it a little harder for companies and individuals with lots of assets to avoid taxation and would encourage putting money to work. Values for assets are market values, which are arbitrary and every-changing yes, just like income and profit is arbitrary and every-changing but at least values for assets are generally set by third parties, as opposed to the value of profits - the situation could not be much worse than the one at present where large companies choose how much tax to pay by manipulating their books to adjust profit. I don't think companies should be taxed on customers personally, but if they choose to value their brand name at $10m owned by a subsidiary as a tax dodge (as at present), sure they should be taxed on that.

LVTfan 6y ago

Were we to treat Land -- sites, and natural resources, including clean air, clean water, and things like geosynchronous orbits, fisheries, electromagnetic spectrum -- as our COMMON treasure, our source of natural public revenue, instead of something to be privatized, our wealth concentration problem would be much much smaller. Instead, we permit individuals and corporations and trusts to privatize the value and we tax it only very lightly --- they get to keep the lion's share, just as if they made it themselves.

mythrwy 6y ago
Another thing worth mentioning is you incentivize efficiency and proper use of physical resources by doing that. And you don't de-incentivize productive labor (as our current tax scheme does to an extent). If all tax were things like use of land, use of aluminum in a can, burning of a unit of fossil fuel instead of "you worked an extra hour or invented something, now you owe a greater percent!" I believe society would become much more innovate and efficient.