2 ms·

Ok? It results in them paying taxes while they hold it, to the value they ascribe to it. If they say it's higher than the original buyer, we get more in tax rev

• jandrewrogers 3y ago
  You’ve misunderstood my point. This is formulaic finance math. In normal finance markets, there is a natural equilibrium where markets fully value the risk of mis-pricing the asset as part of the asset value. In the scenario outlined, only one party in the market is taking that risk, which means any financially savvy third-party can basically make free money off assets owned by others almost risk-free under a wide range of scenarios. Instant profit while producing no value. It would create an entire parasitic finance industry dedicated to exploiting it. You won’t generate much tax revenue if you destroy elementary mechanics of the economy along the way. It may not be intuitive how the math works but this would be exploited so hard it would cause serious social and political issues. I don’t have a dog in this fight, I am just savvy enough to the math to see how bad an idea this is. Which is probably why no government has seriously attempted it even though it is an old idea.
  • IanCal 3y ago
    Could you outline a single example or at least provide a reference to understand this more? I'm not at all getting what exactly these third parties would do. How is it different from just putting up items for sale with a price?