Hacker News Reader

Comment by imtringued | Hacker News Reader

> because "society" decides they are no longer productive.

You have to consider the benchmark. Do people deserve to live in a castle if they aren't productive enough?

Living in a single family home in the middle of NYC requires a whole lot of productivity because you are literally displacing dozens of other people. You have to be as productive as all those people combined to be worthy of replacing them.

View on HN

So by your accounting, if I purchase a home in Stockton, CA right now, then in 40 years when I'm old and can't afford the taxes on my lifelong home because Stockton is huge then, I'm to be kicked out for a more productive use?

More likely, the government would place a lien on your property, and when you die or sell your home, the profits would be used to pay for the deferred tax, rather than simply accruing to you or your heirs.

And why should the home I paid for be auctioned by the government? How is that fair for anyone but the wealthy? You're saying that only the rich can stay in one place, everyone else has to move to the middle of no where or risk losing it all to said rich folk who will buy my property at auction by the government.

Seems silly to me.

In my original comment, I stated "when you die or sell your home", so I don't see why anyone would have to move.

If you think people shouldn't have to pay extra when their land becomes more valuable, I don't see why they should still get the profits when their land becomes more valuable. That's basically socializing the costs, but privatizing the profits, which is obviously a bad thing to do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com