The point is it’s easier to just tax wealth a bit more and let everyone get on the bloody train… It’s mostly people just going to work/school, makes sense to be free
> easier to just tax wealth a bit more and let everyone get on the bloody train
I mean its not. If it was, they would have done it.
Wealth taxes are really fucking hard to do equitably, at least at first.
For example OAPs tend to live in very expensive hosues. take rotherhithe for example one could have bought a house in the 90s for shit all, and now its worth the best part of 1.4 million.
so now you're levying a 5% tax on a pensioner, or worse still a young couple mortgaged to the fucker.
Now, but what about the super asset rich I hear you say?
Well, they'll transfer all they own into a corporation. They can't tax assets like that on business because it'll crash the economy super quick.
> Well, they'll transfer all they own into a corporation. They can't tax assets like that on business because it'll crash the economy super quick
Thanks for that. I've always thought that wealth isn't taxed heavily because it's the wealthy that make the laws. That still may be part of it, but this surely is too.
As a side note, I'm puzzled as to where this seemingly prevalent (here, at least) sentiment of letting people ride public transport for free has suddenly come from? It makes absolutely no sense, but is being said as if it's the most obvious thing in the world!
> where this [...] sentiment of letting people ride public transport for free has suddenly come from?
It has been there since public transport has been a thing. Its popularity ebbs and flows with the years, because it's fundamentally very appealing: dealing with tickets and tariffs is a huge annoyance, and everyone resents it for one reason or another. "Surely there is a simpler way!"
Alas, ticketing systems seem to be the less-worst thing, a bit like representative democracy as a system of government. Free-for-all attempts never survive an economic or budgetary crisis, and tickets are the closest thing to an objective method to raise funds for a service. Maybe technology (and politics) will eventually evolve enough to develop fairer means-tested systems.
Wealth isn't taxed because most wealth, unlike income or other use taxes, are based on valuations that are extremely fragile.
Let's say you open a corner bakery that does very well. You are making $1m/year and paying the government $200k/yr in corporation taxes. That leaves $800k/yr in the biz. A perpetuity paying $800k/yr at 5% discount rate is worth $16m (obviously this is a bad proxy for the value of a risky business, but it's a starting point).
So the government comes along and says "ok you owe us X% of this business per year". Where do you get the money for this? You can't just give the government shares. But it's a corner bakery...nobody wants to go through the headache of buying 1% in a local business. And what happens next year when business drops, and the value drops, how do you prove to the govt what it's worth? It's a minefield, and probably not legal.
I get it. People want to eat the rich. It's easier to point to other people as the problem (even if they pay 40x more proportionately in tax than someone else) instead of saying "Christ, maybe we spend too much". But the ideas to kick the can are really getting silly.
I think I get it, but it doesn't help the image that there are some who are so obviously abusing the system.
Everybody knows who they are. Everybody can see what they're doing, how they're using their position to avoid putting anything back in to the society that's made them all that wealth. And nobody can point to something and say "There! That exact thing right there they're doing should be illegal! Make a law!".
What do you mean "can't", this is exactly what already happens in countries that already implement a wealth tax (eg, Switzerland). If you own a corporation that has assets worth millions, then the corporation is the asset that you're paying wealth taxes on (as part of your personal tax return).
Doesn't matter if the company is based abroad either, you'll still need to supply the companies balance sheet as part of your personal tax return. Last time I checked, the Swiss economy (unsurprisingly) has not come crashing down.
We need a housing policy reset, the OAPs shouldn't have the majority of their retirement assets tied up in a 1.4M illiquid house. They need an affordable off-ramp to downsize, and we need to build more affordable housing to deflate the market. This is wildly unpopular because lots of people are already over-leveraged trying to get onto the property ladder, but objectively it's the correct course to start to unfuck things.
The purpose of a house or apartment should be shelter for a family, not a retirement plan or an investment for a corporation.
Case in point. No one's suggesting confiscating anything, yet some people can't contain themselves at the suggestion that maybe housing policy is broken.
> I mean yes, but the hidden cost is moving outside of your support network. Downsizing is often very lucrative.
If we had a sensible housing policy, it would be possible to downsize within your local community. Towns and villages would be made up of a good mix of different types of housing, for different parts of life. Then people could move into appropriately sized houses without having to leave their support networks.
