3 ms·
Turning the chief asset for retirement for the retiring crowd into a liability is a non-starter. Excluding them would be an enormous wealth transfer in their f
by kansface 4y ago
Turning the chief asset for retirement for the retiring crowd into a liability is a non-starter. Excluding them would be an enormous wealth transfer in their favor.
- itsoktocry 4y ago>Turning the chief asset for retirement for the retiring crowd into a liability is a non-starter. This is a bug not a feature (but yes, is a problem).
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoIt already is a massive wealth transfer to them. The question is what's the political will to put a stop to increasing it further before it collapses society. It's basically "inflation that affects you less the more property you own" and people seem aware that inflation can collapse societies if not tamed. A counter-balancing wealth transfer like a UBI or some kind of pension scheme for people not yet retired that ties into the tax raised from land would work. But we'll bumble into it step by step as usual, no point rushing to create a better world when we can keep making it worse for a few decades.
- BeetleB 4y ago> Excluding them would be an enormous wealth transfer in their favor. A temporary one. Ensure only people over a certain age who own land are excluded, and only while they are alive. Once they die (or sell), the inheritors/new owners are not excluded. And ensure you can't make it perpetual by placing it into a trust.