Homeowners when you try to tax their property at market value: "but this isn't *real* wealth, I bought this home to *live in*, not for *profit*" Homeowners when you try to build four apartments next door:

Mar 14, 2024 · 7:03 AM UTC

12
112
3
1,089
Wait WTF?!! NIMBY Robert Davidson appears to live in an 8-storey apartment building, yet is trying to block a 4-storey apartment from being built next door?! These people know we can see what they're doing, right? abc.net.au/news/2024-03-14/u…
4
5
2
129
(Reasons I believe he lives there: - article repeatedly states he lives in an "apartment" that's "right next door" to 7 Ryans Road - there aren't any other apartments next door - neighboring properties are worth way more than the $830k he quotes)
2
59
Okay nevermind, I found proof he lives in that exact building. My contempt is unparalleled.
90
Replying to @GeorgistSteve
Do you expect people to act against their own interests?
2
2
When voting or influencing policy, yes.
2
32
more replies
Replying to @GeorgistSteve
The requirement to pay wages wasn't a tax on wealth. Georgists need to make it clear as gin, that in principle "land taxes" are the same. In fact, change the name, get it collected by a private company, pay them 0.1% to do so, and get them to pay it out as a Citizens Dividend.
1
3
Replying to @GeorgistSteve
Both positions make complete sense.
Replying to @GeorgistSteve
People don't like to pay taxes. News at 11.
1
5
Replying to @GeorgistSteve
You dont want to be taxed at an hypothetical value, especially if you won't have any refund when the value lower. But you also don't want to allow your hypothetical added value to disappear.
1
4
Replying to @GeorgistSteve
This isn't difficult to understand. Scenario 1 is wanting to avoid current/immediate costs for what will be future proceeds at an undetermined date. Scenario 2 is wanting to avoid things that will negatively impact those future proceeds.
1
1
Load more