ilzolende:

jbeshir:

collapsedsquid:

jbeshir:

collapsedsquid:

collapsedsquid:

socialjusticemunchkin:

@collapsedsquid said: I think nobody wants to deal with the valuation necessary to tax that shit.

“will sell” prices

So, does that mean that if any rich asshole doesn’t like you, he can take your home and car or force you to pay exorbitant taxes on it?

Even without that, do you thing people will stay sane knowing that they have to put all their shit on the market for sale every tax cycle?

EDIT: at that point it gets close to “government owns everything, people can only rent.“

@jbeshir said

If any rich assholes want to buy stuff from me at “will sell” prices,
they’re welcome to, my phone has a slight scratch in the screen and a
new one would be nice, and my desktop is aging and could use an upgrade.

Dear god, I hope this proposal doesn’t involve tracking and taxing each person’s knickknacks.

“government owns everything, people can only rent” is sort of accurate; part of the concept is that you’re basically paying everyone else to continue to maintain the fiction of private property as opposed to just deciding not to, and people who have a lot of private property get to pay a lot for all the stuff they’re wanting other people to not touch. It’s more like “no one owns anything, but for a fee to be redistributed we’ll enforce on everyone that they let you pretend”.

Keep reading

The theoretical equitability and stuff are not my main problem, I think it could tax a household with staff more as the staff themselves have to pay taxes which would be represented in their pay.

So, while you don’t own a home, I’m assuming you live somewhere, and therefore you could run the risk of being evicted under this system.  Unless people are insane, it’s not worth doing for an individual person, but it could be for development or to enforce a segregationist policy. You’ve basically created a form of universal eminent domain here where people can be moved if their property could be put to more economical use. I can see the economic efficiency argument, politically this is terrifying.

Kind of reminds me of the point @oligopsonoia made about markets vs property. This would drive the conservative movement hard because it’s first and foremost an attack on property in favor of markets, which is the opposite of the direction the conservative base wants. For those left-of-center, it increases the power of the rich, says that the rich can basically get anything they want.  I talked about the effect on individual people cause it’s a short quip, but it’s more the potential effects if employed en masse for political projects that would be worrisome.

I mentioned Polanyi in the second reply, and his point here is accurate.  You are basically subjecting everyone to the whims of the markets at all times and providing them with little security. That will drive people insane. Fascists and communists will be racing to see who can be the first to overthrow the government.

I still kind of feel like I’m not getting it.

Possibly I have an odd mindset here, as a permanent renter who regards property as basically a means to an ends and tends to budget it as though it were a subscription, on the theory that if I’m buying it I’m presumably also wanting to replace it once it dies/fails/breaks/wears out, and this gives me an annualised cost, so I’m accurately estimating my cost of living increase from deciding to make “having one of these” part of my life.

Keep reading

List of “things” that I “own” (not sure whether my relationship with these things is ownership, per se, or if they’re object-ish enough to be taxed) that I value significantly above market value but would feel somewhat cheated if I had to pay taxes on the sentimental value of:

  • My backup drive
  • Various redundant removable DNA-containing bits of my body (I am fine with the Red Cross having my blood, because they only do a small number of things with it. I am not fine with Autism Speaks doing genetics research at me.)
  • A few objects I’ve made out of felt

Perhaps homeowners feel this way about their houses?

Taxes should be on the “will sell” value. That is, the amount of money that would genuinely make you indifferent to whether or not you keep the backup drive or get some money. That amount is supposed to be higher than the price of buying a new backup drive (it should cost in the inconvenience of going to the store, learning new functionality, transferring archives).

“But then,” you say, “the taxes would be set too high.”

“That certainly depends” I answer “on what % they’re set at.”

Whether you’re paying 15% of market value, or you’re paying 10% of your “will sell” price should come out the same (Assuming there is a 5% differences, all numbers are to be calculated later of course.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s