[lazide]

Ultimately, this appears to be yet another step in the direction of deep control of society over wealth and the people who have it.

Which, if you ever want to have anything of your own or be better than median in some way should concern you greatly.

Some people will not rest until you’re poorer and more miserable than them, no matter what. Even if it means hurting themselves (and everyone else) to do it.

Crabs in a bucket mentality is deeply destructive and dangerous.

[kiba]

Land is a scarce and valuable commodity that should be divided amongst the community to maximize its benefit for everyone, typically through taxation.

If you want the most valuable land, you should be operating enterprises that provide values high enough to pay for the land.

[lazide]

Ah, manipulative arguments here we come!

If property taxes don't vary based on who owns them, but rather by some standardized valuation, then why does it matter if it is owned by an LLC, a Corp, or some individual? The tax is the same and needs to be paid regardless. The land will need to be used effectively, or it's a cost on a balance sheet somewhere coming out of someone's pocket.

The 'utility based value' is always the same then, correct? And the incentive to use it effectively is the same too, correct?

The 'value' of these kinds of rule changes is because, eventually, the tax WILL be different based on who owns it. 'Good people' (based on the current political winds) of course being given good rates, and 'Bad people' getting punitive rates or having it outright seized.

[Eisenstein]

Do you believe that wealth is an innate right no matter the societal cost -- that people should be able to own such things or amounts of things that it is to the detriment of those around them?

[lazide]

Wouldn't any detriment be related to the land/property itself, and hence that should be addressed?

For instance, if the owner is doing something obnoxious on a parcel in town, the town can put a lien on it, or condemn it. Then the problem is fixed and that parcel is taken away.

If someone is monopolizing hotels (say) in an area, the local county or state can pass a tax on hotels that make it less desirable to do that. Or start taking on anti monopoly action in the hotel industry in the area.

If that same person owns a parcel in another state, how do those two things relate? Or say one hotel in another state?

Unless someone also wants to go after that other parcel or property, anyway, as a prize.

[Eisenstein]

I don't follow you. Wealth is ownership of resources. You are saying 'if the resources are a problem, take them away' which is saying 'remove the wealth'.

[lazide]

I'm saying if a specific resource is a problem due to how it is being used (per a general rule or principle that would be applied generally), then take it away after due process based on that rule or principle. Who owns it shouldn't matter, frankly. If it does, that is corruption - regardless if that person is rich or poor.

Not just because some specific person happens to own it that we don't like for whatever reason right now.

Also known as Article 1, Section 9, or a 'Bill of attainder'.

Aka penalize actual bad behavior equally, not people just because we think they have too much wealth.

That way, if people don't actually create problems, they can have wealth. If they do create problems, wealthy or not, they won't have tools to cause problems.

[Eisenstein]

So the answer to this question: "Do you believe that wealth is an innate right no matter the societal cost -- that people should be able to own such things or amounts of things that it is to the detriment of those around them?"

Is 'no'? Couldn't you have just answered with that?

[lazide]

Because that is not the question I was answering at all. And I don’t appreciate you attempting to put words in my mouth.

You keep attempting to frame some sort of argument that the ‘sin’ is wealth or not, and the discussion is about if it is okay to take wealth or not.

I’m only interested in if someone is doing something identifiably harmful to others or not, and how to ensure someone is following the rules or not. And if the outcome works.

These are not the same thing, though there is overlap.

That you seem to think they are the same thing - with no evidence, and without addressing it - seems to actually be the crux of the problem, no?

If someone is ‘bad’ because they have wealth, the only available ‘good’ solution is to not have wealth. That is crabs in a bucket, and destructive.

If someone is ‘bad’ because they are breaking a rule or harming someone, the ‘good’ solution is for them to follow the rule or to stop harming someone.

That can actually make things better, assuming those rules or lack of harm actually works or produces wealth, because people can do that and be wealthy. There is incentive to produce and be more.

The big challenge right now is if you actually follow the rules, apparently you get screwed. Following the rules doesn't produce much wealth. Or at least that is the direction things are going.

And if you have wealth, especially if you follow the rules, you’ll be hounded and be at a significant disadvantage. Unless you don’t play by the rules.

Notably, this has always been the case to some degree.

The issue is the corruption, and the rules that are penalizing things either based on attributes someone cannot change, or encouraging things that destroy wealth, instead of encouraging people to change to be more successful by doing what society needs.

Now, perhaps the issue is that no one knows what 'the right thing' is, or what society actually needs in a sustainable way. In which case, actually talking about that might be helpful!

Or no one is willing or able to agree on some reasonable degree of potential harm. Everything has to be perfect (which is impossible).

We can only get to those discussions if we first face the actual argument we're even having though.

[Analemma_]

Something like this argument applies to a lot of privately-created wealth, but not to land. Private ownership of land (and the profits generated by it) is completely philosophically incoherent if you spend a little time thinking about it, starting with the fact that private property rights require that stolen assets be returned and not able to be profited from, but all land is stolen when you trace back far enough, and all land ownership claims are the fruit of the poisoned tree.

The best approach would be one where the government issues long-term leases to parcels of land, but property taxes are an okay-ish alternative if that (or LVTs) aren't feasible. Note that this is already what we do for things like the EM spectrum: the government owns it in the public trust, then leases it with an open bidding process.