|
|
|
|
|
|
by kaibee
372 days ago
|
|
|
No. Obviously the tax would be phased in over a long period of time and for political reasons probably include some recompense to current owners. But what, are we doomed for all time because of decisions made in the past? There will always be a new cohort of people who played by the rules of the current system and oh won't it be unfair to them. What about the people who are suffering because of the current system? |
|
|
Obviously?! Phasing in changes over long periods would solve lots of problems - at usually low cost to society it seems. You could - if anyone cared - educate the population on the time frame for the deployment, and you could - if anyone cared - advertise the time-value of the change, for example on the valuation of property before, through and after the change. And things would be fine.
But the reality of things seems to be that a politician will be in power for just a few years. So that either they need the change to go in effect so they can claim the deed and the effects (alleged - because who cares if it's real?), or they prefer the change to happen just after they have left (so the change / effect can be blamed on the next guy? or can be postponed should they get re-elected.)
Nobody (?) looks to make the change "fair" to the population. There is no electoral value in that.
This shows up everywhere: agricultural subsidies, tax rate changes, property tax changes, construction / permitting / zoning changes, usage of an area (similar to zoning see construction or extension of an airport and residential nuisance), planned future freeway path, legalization or criminalization of any activity, climate change rules. So that some industries become perpetually on the lookout for the next cycle (mining, oil, finance?), while others constantly get away with claiming unawareness (zoning, permitting?)