Earlier quoted context omitted.
A wealth tax is exactly equivalent to a rent. There is a genuine owner (the state) which has control of the property in a default, there is an unlimited recurring fee set by the owner (the state), and access to the property is predicated on paying that fee.
Of course not. You still own whatever you own, and can still sell it, destroy it, modify it, whatever. You do pay tax on owning it, in a system that taxes wealth, but that does not mean someone else owns it. Calling it rent and calling the state the true owner doesn't really make sense--you're conflating two separate ideas, I think, to play on people's emotions ("oh noes, the state owns everything!"). It's not true o…
Not if you don't pay the rent.
> and can still sell it, destroy it, modify it, whatever
And when you sell it, you're basically selling a rental agreement.
> Calling it rent and calling the state the true owner doesn't really make sense--you're conflating two separate ideas, I think, to play on people's emotions ("oh noes, the state owns everything!"). It's not true or accurate, though.
Call it whatever you want, I want to actually own my property, instead of having to pay for it on an ongoing basis on threat of deprivation. At the end of the day, the state is the owner, because they are the only ones who don't have to pay to keep it. We can chase our tails all day and nitpick about definitions, but in the purest sense, the government owns almost everything in Norway, if people stop paying the rent/tax/fee.