11–20 of 25 posts
The despicable problem with land taxation is that it turns property from owned to rented . It allows for abuses of raising tax rates to drive people off their property. It replaced true supply-and-demand with arbitrary choices by under-informed bureaucrats, which never goes well. It is the core of gentrification problems, driving people from long-occupied homes via taxation because others pay a premium for neighbouri…
The despicable problem with land taxation is that it turns property from owned to rented . It allows for abuses of raising tax rates to drive people off their property. It replaced true supply-and-demand with arbitrary choices by under-informed bureaucrats, which never goes well. It is the core of gentrification problems, driving people from long-occupied homes via taxation because others pay a premium for neighbouri…
The despicable problem with land taxation is that it turns property from owned to rented . It allows for abuses of raising tax rates to drive people off their property. It replaced true supply-and-demand with arbitrary choices by under-informed bureaucrats, which never goes well. It is the core of gentrification problems, driving people from long-occupied homes via taxation because others pay a premium for neighbouri…
I see a much bigger problem in land ownership encouraging concentration of capital. We should be encouraging productivity, innovation, hard work, not rent-seeking.
Some populations practice having as many children as they can because their belief system calls for it. They believe they will get more brownie points from a supreme being for that. So these groups will get more share of the basic income in the next generation and more in the next and so on and so on...
I get it. I like it. But man, would that piss off all the farmers in this country.
The concept is simple and elegant on paper, but it's vulnerable to the same problem that real-world policies that philosophers come up with often fall prey to. It's going to be incredibly difficult to assess the "unimproved value" of any parcel of land fairly. Do you apply a flat rate per acre of land regardless of where it is, to the detriment of rural farmers who own many acres? Or do you take the location into acc…
No, it's the market value of the land. Probably the price would be determined in a manner similar to property tax.
It seems that in our current world, it's easier to fairly determine property tax then what counts as someone's income, at least for the self-employed and investment classes.
The concept is simple and elegant on paper, but it's vulnerable to the same problem that real-world policies that philosophers come up with often fall prey to. It's going to be incredibly difficult to assess the "unimproved value" of any parcel of land fairly. Do you apply a flat rate per acre of land regardless of where it is, to the detriment of rural farmers who own many acres? Or do you take the location into acc…
> Do you apply a flat rate per acre of land regardless of where it is, to the detriment of rural farmers who own many acres? No, it's the market value of the land. Probably the price would be determined in a manner similar to property tax. It seems that in our current world, it's easier to fairly determine property tax then what counts as someone's income, at least for the self-employed and investment classes.
If anything, this idea seems like it would only harm the (already struggling) middle-class, who may have little equity beyond their home/hand.
The despicable problem with land taxation is that it turns property from owned to rented . It allows for abuses of raising tax rates to drive people off their property. It replaced true supply-and-demand with arbitrary choices by under-informed bureaucrats, which never goes well. It is the core of gentrification problems, driving people from long-occupied homes via taxation because others pay a premium for neighbouri…
How does that differ from property taxation?