Yes, the greater the rentalValue a property is the more tax, progressive from 15-50% of a years rental value.

The more land you own the closer to 50% you would get, that's what makes it "progressive".

#IncomeTax needs to go, thats part of the #profitLoss shenanigans.

@dsfgs
How do you deal with property owned by foreign corporations ?
@cjd
If they don't pay it, its the property goes to the people.
@dsfgs
Sure but how do you estimate the total amount of property that a foreign corporation owns ?
@cjd
Beneficiaries need to be known, yes.
@dsfgs
That doesn't sound much more equitable than a byzantine income tax.
Why not just flat tax land and provide people a basic income so they can afford to live in a house ?

@cjd
That's a possibility, but we think its important to curb accumulation and monopoly in land, or you end up with Lords building crap for the majority, and who get supported by govt payments, ie, the UBI just goes direct to them.

No competition possible.

Also why a #UBI needs to go up slightly with age, creates that needed uncertainty in housing market to restrain prices.

@cjd
And when we say "building crap" we mean the #tenementSlums they are erecting now for us.

So flat #landTax will likely mean maintaining the statusQuo.

@cjd
Also the more land one owns the less connected to each tennant the entity is and the greater the #economyOfScale for the entity.

Not having it progressive therefore punishes the smaller operator.

@dsfgs
I get why you favor such an idea, I just don't think it's at all realistic. Considering for example foreign public corporations which are owned by a multitude of different stockholders including individuals, partnerships, other corporations and trusts. Asking a corporation to provide a full accounting of it's real flesh-and-blood owners may be impossible. So perhaps you forbid foreign corporations owning land, ok...
@dsfgs
Now even with local corporations it's complicated. Consider Alice owns 5% of Acme Corp, but she lent her stock to Bob who is a shortseller and Bob sold it to Charlie because he's shorting Acme. Does Alice still own 5% of Acme for the purpose of Acme's land? Does Charlie? Both think they do but if the answer is yes to both then you come out over 100%. So lets suppose you forbid all public corporations owning land...

@cjd
Short Selling is selling something you don't actually own, its a bit like #fraud and comes under the banner of #financialisation. It's built around being destructive rather than productive.

Wasn't it illegal until the 1990s?

#shortSelling #rehypothecation #ownership #hyperFinancialisation

@dsfgs
Well, you're borrowing it and then selling it with the intent of being able to re-acquire it later on.
Have you ever borrowed money and then spent it with the intent of earning it back later ?

@cjd
Its not sounding any better :)

Did the person get permission from the owners to short it. If so, now suddenly there is a fresh #ConflictOfInterest? :P

This kind of thing speaks to the #schizophrenic nature of hyper-financialisation, and why we say its unproductive, unhelpful, longterm.

Its #complexityTheatre and needs to stop.

@dsfgs
See the problem is you're still not even sure of the basic mechanics of how shortselling works but you already know that it should be illegal.

Fortunately real legislatures spend a lot more time thinking through the effects of their decisions than this.

@cjd
We know the basic mechanics. It's #speculation and glorified #gambling.

If you don't hace something to contribute to the discussion, refrain.

@cjd
Its a particularly toxic form of #gambling. Yes we made a mistake with the reference to #nakedShortSelling.

That doesn't make it much less toxic, though.