4 ms·
One way to mitigate that is to not tax “wealth” arbitrarily. Instead imagine something more targeted like a land value tax. Property rights could be changed so
by CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
One way to mitigate that is to not tax “wealth” arbitrarily. Instead imagine something more targeted like a land value tax. Property rights could be changed so that some assets that are in limited supply and posses capital value such as land, simply can’t just be owned, but are instead leased.
I mean wealth per se isn’t an issue. In the grand scheme of things what material goods you have matter little. It’s the unreasonable and unbalanced command over actual capital that create issues.
- robocat 6y agoIf property (land + building) taxes are significant, then property is already leased. E.g. in NZ you buy property, but the local government taxes it, so you are essentially paying a small lease. Enough so that some retirees with no income have to downsize because the rates are a significant burden.
- CuriousSkeptic 6y agoThat would be the general idea. I think calling it a lease instead of tax has some benefits from an ideological perspective. But for this discussion suffice it to say that it should not just be an arbitrary tax. I also think a substantial amount of the revenue from such lease should be tunneled back into the economy as a public dividend. Also for ideological reasons. But in practice to allow for higher prices (100% of market value would be ideal) while not impacting the retirees you mention quite as much.