It's a land value crisis. That's why the same size house costs more in a city. Society creates land value.
Tax land, not labour.
Tax land, not labour.
And then if you're really feeling like reform:
Tax assets instead of income for individuals, and tax both for corporations. Only tax income for small businesses.
We should have a flat consumption tax for all. And a single one time child tax. It is in effect a double tax, but still will be lower impact than the cacophony of various taxes we have now...it can be used to fund education. Currently funded by property taxes.
a single flat consumption tax will stabilize economy. I suspect that it would also curtail consumption and carbon foot print. A tiered consumption tax might be punitive but not a terrible idea even though it ought to be a back up or a emergency measure during crisis situations.
Food, shelter, medical and educational expenses should be taxed after a minimal deduction.
Try a lot of thought. Like Henry George. Ricardo. Einstein. Friedman.
And then reconsider.
Esp re what those people have said?
I suppose you have no opinion? I see no point in continuing this exchange. Cheers.
anyway, i suspect your "idea" is bad from the start... you say tax consumption... AND THEN tax the (just?) born... do you even darwin bro?
You are giving the disenfranchised the shaft from the outset.. who do you think would like this? who do you surround yourself with to get to this line of thinking? Rhetorically, I'm done.
Perhaps if I expanded that as ‘pay taxes for the consumption of your own child’? And pay a fee before having kids. This could be in the form of a community trust or an investment fund at county, state or country level.
We pay different kinds of taxes but children are negative taxes. As in, cost of rearing children is mostly subsidized by the govt with taxes.
My suggestion was that every consumption good needs to be taxed. When income, property, inheritance etc are not taxed and only sale of goods is taxed, everyone pays a tax according to their lifestyle.
Example: a sleeping cot is taxed much lower than a yacht or a house. Parents save and pay for their children’s education. The retirees live off retirement plans.
In my last sentence I mention that food, shelter, medical and education are only taxed after minimal deductions. Which means, everyone essentially gets a kind of UBI for essential needs before their consumption in these survival categories is taxed.
Obviously if one is ‘disenfranchised’ there is charity. Currently we consume too much using credit lines and debt. The key is to restrict consumption and eliminate waste/scarcity...have more local governance than regional governance.
That would cause an incentive to consume and a disincentive to save. I don't think that is the direction we want to push our financial system in.
Farming would already be discouraged if farmers could build skyscrapers over their fields and collect the rents from those buildings. Since nobody wants to live in a skyscraper in the country, this never happens.
If it is discouraged - with taxation, that land will be yielded to more productive use.
Nobody creates land but somebody gets to "tax" it. Either we can let that revenue stream fill up government coffers or it can go into private pockets. It's our decision.
Well put. If I suggested privatising air and that you needed to pay the owner to breathe it, that would be seen as ridiculous, and rightly so. Meanwhile, land is an equally natural resource and equally essential to human life, but private land is just accepted as "the way it is".
People in fact do pay for 'special' air in the form of air purifiers, air conditioning, heating, etc.
Land is both scarce and unsubstitutable.
IMO land ownership is a big negative externality, as others can't utilise that land and land is a finite resource. As with all negative externalities, they should be taxed heavily.
If you build a 5 storey house on it you pay the same amount as the guy next door who has an asphalt car park.