Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Why should rentier accumulate this capital and not the wealth creator?

Money != capital.

And there's no reason the rentier should get to keep that money. I'm just pointing out that taking it away from him will not change anything until such time as he might have wanted to spend it. Money only matters when it is used.

When you believe that you can lower labour taxes and raise property taxes, and that these will compensate each other, you are engaging in a version of the loanable funds fallacy. The term structure of payments and the valuation of collateral matters, not just net present value.

If you tax the rentier, you make sure that the rent is paid to the tax man rather than the private rentier.

You don't see the difference?

On the distribution of wealth? Absolutely. On your political culture? Absolutely. On consumer prices? No.

But that does not make the rent go away - the user still has to pay it.

You keep saying this, but i have never said that rents go away. Labour taxes go away.

And as I do not tire of pointing out, your policy proposal is unstable against a tax-cut government. Because asset prices are easier to inflate than deflate, and property taxes are therefore easier to cut than to raise.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 13th, 2011 at 05:17:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series