4 ms·

The big problem with a land tax is that you'd have billionaires paying little tax. One may reasonably counter that that's fine if they aren't actually consuming

The big problem with a land tax is that you'd have billionaires paying little tax. One may reasonably counter that that's fine if they aren't actually consuming much and it's probably correct. The majority of society won't go for it though.

mercutio2 2y ago
What is this obsession people have with the taxation of billionaires? There aren’t many billionaires. Expropriating all their wealth wouldn’t move the needle for any of our budgetary problems. I’m all for closing the step up in basis on death, which is what allows billionaires (and of course only moderately rich folks) to avoid paying much tax over their full life cycle. But LVT is a good idea, regardless of whether billionaires get some extra punishment for having the temerity to create successful businesses.
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  I'm with you. But that means little. Society has a warped view of "fair" an always has. Any tax idea that you want to put in practice has to account for it. Else you may as well be counting horse teeth.
- c22 2y ago
  One of the largest drivers of social issues is the magnitude of the wealth inequality that is present. Taxing the high end should help to address this. Also, I think there's a general sense that they can afford it.
eli_gottlieb 2y ago
> The big problem with a land tax is that you'd have billionaires paying little tax. I don't think so. Billionaires consume quite a lot of real-estate, even if indirectly through their business enterprises. Consider the Google campus in Mountain View or the Microsoft one in Redmond.
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  Take the average person and how much they have tied up (either income or net worth wise) in their house. It's not even close.
  - mcmoor 2y ago
    I've seen some calculations that claim that LVT makes most people's property tax lowers.
    - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
      I mean I guess you could scale the tax and make it that way, but at least on the surface that seems impossible.

mercutio2 2y ago

What is this obsession people have with the taxation of billionaires? There aren’t many billionaires. Expropriating all their wealth wouldn’t move the needle for any of our budgetary problems. I’m all for closing the step up in basis on death, which is what allows billionaires (and of course only moderately rich folks) to avoid paying much tax over their full life cycle. But LVT is a good idea, regardless of whether billionaires get some extra punishment for having the temerity to create successful businesses.

danielmarkbruce 2y ago
I'm with you. But that means little. Society has a warped view of "fair" an always has. Any tax idea that you want to put in practice has to account for it. Else you may as well be counting horse teeth.
c22 2y ago
One of the largest drivers of social issues is the magnitude of the wealth inequality that is present. Taxing the high end should help to address this. Also, I think there's a general sense that they can afford it.

eli_gottlieb 2y ago

> The big problem with a land tax is that you'd have billionaires paying little tax. I don't think so. Billionaires consume quite a lot of real-estate, even if indirectly through their business enterprises. Consider the Google campus in Mountain View or the Microsoft one in Redmond.

danielmarkbruce 2y ago
Take the average person and how much they have tied up (either income or net worth wise) in their house. It's not even close.
- mcmoor 2y ago
  I've seen some calculations that claim that LVT makes most people's property tax lowers.
  - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
    I mean I guess you could scale the tax and make it that way, but at least on the surface that seems impossible.