| ▲ | mort96 4 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The onus is on you to describe some mechanism by which abolishing almost all taxation will magically fix wealth discrepancy. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | kjshsh123 4 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I don't know what degree "fixing" means. You can tax certain things a certain amount and you get diminishing returns. For example, if you had a 50% wealth tax, it would stop collecting anything pretty quickly and would cause pretty big economic disruption. Land value tax has the potential to collect a lot of money with less disruption. There's like $20 trillion worth of capitalized land value in the USA. That could mean like $1 trillion a year on-going assuming 5% discounting. Land rent is a perpetual stream of wealth. There's only $8 trillion billionaire wealth. So already 5%/year would be less. And there's a huge incentive and ability to avoid it by moving. And I rarely ever even hear suggestions for wealth tax rates around 5%. So then if you had a wealth tax, well land is wealth, and you'd be leaving a ton on the table as you could still have the land value tax at 5% of the capitalized value. That money could be spent on public services that poorer people will benefit from more like transit, schools, or even local hospitals and subsidized healthcare. A typical point by LVT supporters here is that these services have the impact of raising land rents. Most taxes have this dynamic: tax -> invest in public services poor people use -> land rents go up -> land owners benefit LVT has this dynamic: Tax land -> invest in public services poor people use -> land rent goes up -> tax land more so land owners don't benefit Landlords, developers, builders etc. should earn the return on the constructed housing, not the land. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||