the argument against is that the rich have more flexibility than the poor and so can set proportionately lower valuations.
you're running the risk of someone unwisely overbidding, and it costs you to defend against that chance.
-
-
In addition (this is a separate but perhaps stronger argument), you're incentivising people to make property less attractive.
-
Price it above the value of the lot and commit to burning it down if someone submits a bit?
-
Burning is legally problematic, but other forms of destruction, sure. I was thinking more "I'm 5'2", make all the doors short"
-
"I'm colourblind, a brown/purple colour scheme will reduce my tax burden while not impacting my welfare"
-
combine with legal ability to sign community agreements and this shouldn't be an issue
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
sure. Then you are taxed on that. Like being taxed when you consume anything good. Basis of good tax system
-
So where in your previous tweet you said "no", you meant "yes". Have you really thought this through? (I haven't, BTW).
-
i was wrong on one claim: in fact the mechanism is perfect & always incentivises pricing where you truly value it
-
true value to you incl sentiment & precaution & cost of moving
-
having connections in a community is to be penalised. Being mobile & rootless is tax-efficient. OK, labour mkt efficiency benefits
-
but I'm not convinced that outweighs impact on culture & cohesion.
-
if cohesion predictably benefits you more than someone who'd want to move in, you pay less tax
-
I'm speaking of community cohesion as a public good. There are externalities to committing to a place. (not all positive).
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.