4 ms·

Maybe this is just me being a filthy capitalist, but it also seems somewhat fair? If cities are instituting rent controls on properties that were previously mar

Maybe this is just me being a filthy capitalist, but it also seems somewhat fair? If cities are instituting rent controls on properties that were previously market rate, that is a targeted form of wealth expropriation. To be clear, I'm not one of these "taxes are theft" people -- we do have to pay shared costs. But there's a continuum of acceptability: it would clearly be wrong to pass a law that raises taxes on one person by name. And it's clearly ok to raise taxes on everyone. For me, instituting rent controls is towards the less acceptable end of this spectrum. If the city believes it ought to be able to set prices on an apartment, it should own that apartment first. Just my unenlightened gut feeling on this issue.

yunohn 5y ago
> it would clearly be wrong to pass a law that raises taxes on one person by name What do you mean? There are innumerable such taxes, globally. You definitely need to tax various people & businesses differently, it’s the only real solution.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  I am not aware of any examples where a country taxes a single individual at a higher rate than everyone else by law. If examples are innumerable, I'd be grateful if you could provide one.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    Iirc the first income tax targeted a very small number of individuals- maybe just Rockefeller or something, as nobody else qualified.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
      I believe it, although at least then it's still targeting a class that others might enter. I do also believe that there's a fundamental difference between income taxes and wealth taking in this regard, in that one is retroactive and the other isn't.
  - yunohn 5y ago
    Where are you getting this strawman of taxing “single individuals”? I’m saying that classes of people or businesses are already taxed differently.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
      > Where are you getting this strawman of taxing “single individuals”? Could you please reread the section of my comment that you quoted and your response to it? I said, "it would clearly be wrong to pass a law that raises taxes on one person by name," and you said, "there are innumerable such taxes, globally." You very specifically did not say that classes of people or businesses are taxed differently. You said single individuals are taxed differently. (You might not have intended to, and if not, well enough, but I set up no strawman in my comment.)

yunohn 5y ago

> it would clearly be wrong to pass a law that raises taxes on one person by name What do you mean? There are innumerable such taxes, globally. You definitely need to tax various people & businesses differently, it’s the only real solution.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
I am not aware of any examples where a country taxes a single individual at a higher rate than everyone else by law. If examples are innumerable, I'd be grateful if you could provide one.
- bombcar 5y ago
  Iirc the first income tax targeted a very small number of individuals- maybe just Rockefeller or something, as nobody else qualified.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    I believe it, although at least then it's still targeting a class that others might enter. I do also believe that there's a fundamental difference between income taxes and wealth taking in this regard, in that one is retroactive and the other isn't.
- yunohn 5y ago
  Where are you getting this strawman of taxing “single individuals”? I’m saying that classes of people or businesses are already taxed differently.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    > Where are you getting this strawman of taxing “single individuals”? Could you please reread the section of my comment that you quoted and your response to it? I said, "it would clearly be wrong to pass a law that raises taxes on one person by name," and you said, "there are innumerable such taxes, globally." You very specifically did not say that classes of people or businesses are taxed differently. You said single individuals are taxed differently. (You might not have intended to, and if not, well enough, but I set up no strawman in my comment.)