Hacker News Reader

Comment by Barrin92 | Hacker News Reader

>However, creating a practical wealth tax seems a bit tricky especially in terms of assessing wealth.

the radicalXChange people have revitalized a somewhat older idea, harberger taxation. The mechanism is relatively straight forward, people self-assess the value of their stuff and pay a periodical tax on it. At any point in time, anyone can force the sale of said commodity.

Point being that if someone sets the price at above market rate, they're reducing allocative efficiency (by exercising monopoly power over their property) so they pay a tax. If goods are exchanged at market rate, then that improves the utilization of the property.

View on HN

I would like this taxation scheme, but that's because it privileges trashing all your assets to the maximum extent you can tolerate. So sure, you can buy my house for 50k. But I've removed all the labels from the circuit box, run spurious wires everywhere, and added some very hazardous electrical traps that will be hell to remove without my notes (which I have conveniently misplaced). I found some lead paint in the shed and just slathered it in every room that would make a good nursery. This house used to have a paved driveway but I don't mind if my car gets dirty so I tore it out. I'm an avid gardener, but I've also down the yard with poisonous flora and whatever else I feel will be hard to remove.

This example is a little contrived, but one could do something similar by just aggressively neglecting one's property.

> and added some very hazardous electrical traps that will be hell to remove without my notes (which I have conveniently misplaced).

I'm pretty sure laying traps like that is illegal, like felony illegal.

> At any point in time, anyone can force the sale of said commodity

So you start a company. In addition to all the risks of a start-up, you have to deal with having to fire selling the shop if someone questions your assessed value? What do you think would happen when a powerful entity and a less-powerful entity disagree?

>What do you think would happen when a powerful entity and a less-powerful entity disagree?

Nothing out of the ordinary really. If you were to put up your company at some multiple of its market value you'd either pay the tax or be bought out.

The only novel thing here is the tax btw, large corporations acquiring smaller companies at a multiple of their value is the wet dream of people who run startups

That’s dumb because it taxes people for sentimental value. My home may only be worth 200k on the open market but I absolutely do not want to be forced to sell it for that (or anywhere near that) because of how disruptive that is to my life.

> That’s dumb because it taxes people for sentimental value

yes, that's the point (or rather the other way around). Taxing you for exercising a monopoly over a property that you only like for sentimental value, while someone else might put the property to productive use if they could purchase it at market rate is exactly the desired effect.

As a practical example, if you say, own a single home on a large plot of land in the middle of a city that desperately needs denser housing, then this tax imposes a cost on you if you self-assess the value highly / are unwilling to sell.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com