[RepAgent]

As I said, there is no reason to extend tax to personal property. If poor people owns something valuable, they stop being poor when wealthy people take it.

The distinction between personal property or personal possessions and private property is important to make and the line must be drawn.

[chii]

> If poor people owns something valuable, they stop being poor when wealthy people take it.

if you owned some land which could've been mined/fracked upon, then it might make economic sense for said company to purchase your land. You'd have to either pay an above average tax rate to justify holding on to the land, or be forced to sell it.

On the one hand, it does make economic utilitarian sense. On the other hand, it prevents people from being able to control their own property. Esp. if they have no funds to fight or defend themselves.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

You foeget eminent domain.

The stack is already against the homeowner who lacks lobbyists to fight back

This achieves more of a level playing field.

[yardstick]

“If poor people owns something valuable, they stop being poor when wealthy people take it”

Only if you accept the money given makes up for the loss. Money does not make someone rich. It may put bread on the table but that poor person is still poor because they lost what was important to them.

Also the rich don’t get rich by paying more than they have to, which may not be what the property is worth to the original owner.

[seniorsassycat]

The amount they would have to value it at so they could afford the tax if they have to pay it may too low to turn them into a wealthy person if a wealthy person chooses to buy it.