3 ms·
> if you're against title-holding, you are really against the idea of ownership, and capital. Is anyone in this discussion against title-holding per se? Not t
by tome 5y ago
> if you're against title-holding, you are really against the idea of ownership, and capital.
Is anyone in this discussion against title-holding per se? Not that I can see. The point is that title-holding should come with some responsibilities, specifically to pay a tax proportional to the value of the title. For comparison, someone is not necessarily against work because they believes that earning income comes with responsibility to pay taxes proportional to that income.
- chii 5y ago> pay a tax proportional to the value of the title. Would you also agree then, that holding onto shares of a company would also require you to pay a proportion of the value of those shares in tax? In other words, this is a wealth tax?
- tome 5y agoWhat I agree with is of little consequence, because I'm not proposing this form of taxation[1]. But, interpreting LVT proponents, I believe they would say no, it's not a wealth tax, it's very specifically a land tax. I believe the point is to replace (all?) other forms of taxation. [1] although I'm optimistic about it and might become a proponent in the future if it seems like an effective policy.