The only way I'd support something like this is if they limited it to taxing investments when they are used. If a person holds onto an inflated asset they shouldn't be penalized. If they use that asset as collateral for a loan then I think it's fair game.
That said, I'd like to see an analysis of what the financial system would look like if we applied that sort of logic to all asset classes and included various entities like corporations, trusts, etc., before I'm fully sold on it.
I really appreciate the desire to reign in the massive wealth inequality in the world today. I'm just wary of these sorts of 'hackish' approaches. I think of the law like I think of source code. It should be clear, consistent, analyzable, and come with a clear set of testable goals and intentions.
Yeah, this is an excellent idea, especially for the environment.
Let's penalize urban gardening co-ops, dog parks, arboretums, and anyone else who thinks preserving some semblance of nature in urban environments is nice to have.
Let's not rest until every urban area is paved completely over into a high-density, lifeless, brutalist hellscape.
Yeah obviously there are tradeoffs. I'd need to see a more thorough analysis of this before I fully support it. It may be the case that there are too many downsides to the proposal. It also may be the case that a few other proposals in concert with this one can achieve the goals in a more comprehensive and productive manner.
Comments
The only way I'd support something like this is if they limited it to taxing investments when they are used. If a person holds onto an inflated asset they shouldn't be penalized. If they use that asset as collateral for a loan then I think it's fair game.
That said, I'd like to see an analysis of what the financial system would look like if we applied that sort of logic to all asset classes and included various entities like corporations, trusts, etc., before I'm fully sold on it.
I really appreciate the desire to reign in the massive wealth inequality in the world today. I'm just wary of these sorts of 'hackish' approaches. I think of the law like I think of source code. It should be clear, consistent, analyzable, and come with a clear set of testable goals and intentions.
There's a serious problem where people are just sitting on valuable land in dense areas, your proposal would exacerbate that.
We need https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax to avoid squatting, instead of property tax which considers the value of land + building.
Yeah, this is an excellent idea, especially for the environment.
Let's penalize urban gardening co-ops, dog parks, arboretums, and anyone else who thinks preserving some semblance of nature in urban environments is nice to have.
Let's not rest until every urban area is paved completely over into a high-density, lifeless, brutalist hellscape.
Screw species diversity. Homo sapiens is #1!
Yeah obviously there are tradeoffs. I'd need to see a more thorough analysis of this before I fully support it. It may be the case that there are too many downsides to the proposal. It also may be the case that a few other proposals in concert with this one can achieve the goals in a more comprehensive and productive manner.