[JumpCrisscross]

I don't see how this has anything to do with patents or copyright. Presumably, those would be subject to this seizure mechanism and thus flow to those most willing to enforce their claims.

Like, 99% of the activity under such a mechanism would be transfers of financial assets.

[lotsofpulp]

A power law land value tax would take care of most of the problem at almost no cost (since land is assessed regularly anyway).

This should completely replace income tax. Copyright terms should also be 10 years, maybe 15 max. Patents could probably stay as is, but I don’t see any problem reducing them too.

[JumpCrisscross]

> power law land value tax would take care of most of the problem at almost no cost (since land is assessed regularly anyway)

Sure. This is a totally different proposal.

Would note that you could go a long way to making this proposal electorally appealing by exempting primary residences. (In my experience, the assessed value of a home is at best loosely related to its market value.)

[lotsofpulp]

It would be electorally appealing, but would fail at one of the main benefits.

The number one waste of space in the US is people’s excessively large footprint, causing enormous consumption of energy and infrastructure costs that are borne by future generations.

All these detached single family homes on 0.1+ acre lots are massively expensive and the people living in them hardly pay taxes proportionate to the benefit they receive from the government. Instead, our society takes from the working class via income tax.

If you want to live in a detached home on a large lot, be ready to pay the appropriate land value taxes.

If you want to conserve and use less of society’s resources, live in an apartment building.

Since the tax formula would be a power law function, it would inherently not be punitive to the vast majority of Americans who don’t live on outsize plots of land.

[JumpCrisscross]

> number one waste of space in the US is people’s excessively large footprint

Massively needing a source.

> it would inherently not be punitive to the vast majority of Americans who don’t live on outsize plots of land

DOA. Partly due to the electoral college. Partly due to American optimism and aspiration. Perfect is the enemy of the good.

[lotsofpulp]

> Massively needing a source.

Physics.

Energy = acceleration * mass * distance.

The more stuff you move further distances, the more energy you need.

Obviously, more people living in a square mile will use less energy per person than fewer people living in a square mile.

Think about all the energy needed to move water/sewer/trash/gas/police/ambulances/etc in and around a neighborhood where 100 people live in a Barcelona style communal living versus 100 detached homes on 0.1 acres each.

The huge knock on effects of the latter is that it then necessitates personal vehicle transport, which then compounds into more space being needed for huge arterial roads and highways, which then makes neighborhoods unwalkable, further necessitating personal vehicle transport, and so on and so forth.

> DOA. Partly due to the electoral college. Partly due to American optimism and aspiration. Perfect is the enemy of the good.

I’m under no illusion, but I also don’t see a need to inconvenience myself with half measures if my countrymen are not willing to do what is necessary.

[whatshisface]

Most of the blue collar workers I know live in single family suburban homes. Factories are rarely located in urban centers, and corporate dormitories are no longer much of a thing in this country.

[JumpCrisscross]

You've switched from arguing for a land value tax to arguing for densification. LVTs shoulod cause densification ceteris paribus.

Zoning, however, is the mutandis. LVTs absent zoning reform would not be expected to change much in cities. Zoning reform absent LVTs would spark a systemic boom in densification.

Zoning reform and LVTs are thus orthogonal, with the scant interaction being almost entirely defined by the ratio of unbuilt structures due exclusively to zoning or land hoarding. I asserted that ratio is close to one, due to ample evidence for the former. I asked you for evidence of the latter; "physics" is not a response.

> I also don’t see a need to inconvenience myself with half measures if my countrymen are not willing to do what is necessary

This is, by definition, extremism. It's generally seen as a red flag, communicating lack of commitment and/or dogmatic delusions.