This is an under appreciated problem with inequality.
Ideally, others success should be net-positive/neutral for others.
In practice, inequality has these perverse impacts at least:
(Wealth is a spectrum. “Rich” and “non-rich” below stand in for any significant relative difference.)
1. The non-rich often put unrealistic pressure on themselves to keep up with wealthier lifestyles.
But beyond that self-inflicted wound:
2. The rich can afford outsized amounts of critical or survival type services and assets. Like land. Fresh vegetables. This imbalance raises the cost of meeting basic needs.
3. Markets respond to more rich by creating higher end services and products. Some have subjective value (fashion), some are luxuries (massages are beneficial, but not critical for most), but many are practical.
For instance, computing hardware, internet access options, expensive healthcare interventions, medications, private transport growth relative to public transport, etc.
4. And the rich also perversely put unrealistic social and employer pressures on the lifestyles of the non-rich. I.e. dress and personal technology shibboleths, etc.
—-
It is worth pointing out that the large role of real estate as a passive wealth compounder, tracking up with the product of increased overall economy and inequality growth, is perverse enough.
But the common arrangement of property taxes that tax both land (the limited and exclusionary asset) and its development (the non-exclusionary asset we should not be disincentivizing in any way), adds another perversity to land economics.
When a problem compounds already, it doesn’t need any more perverse incentives!
If property taxes were replaced by just land taxes (renormalized to be revenue neutral) it would:
1. increase the return on development, and
2. increase the costs of holding (absolutely or relatively) undeveloped land!
Which would both increase development (i.e. housing, multi-housing) and increase supply of (relatively) unused land.
This would be a net win for those who are impacted or concerned about inequality, but also those with a libertarian or capitalist viewpoint. As it removes a wealth tax. (Which isn’t just a double tax, but an unlimited repetitive tax on the same already taxed/unrealized non-exclusionary wealth!)
Whether rich or poor, improving one’s property with already taxed capital or self-supplied labor, would not perversely raise one’s taxes.
Ideally, others success should be net-positive/neutral for others.
In practice, inequality has these perverse impacts at least:
(Wealth is a spectrum. “Rich” and “non-rich” below stand in for any significant relative difference.)
1. The non-rich often put unrealistic pressure on themselves to keep up with wealthier lifestyles.
But beyond that self-inflicted wound:
2. The rich can afford outsized amounts of critical or survival type services and assets. Like land. Fresh vegetables. This imbalance raises the cost of meeting basic needs.
3. Markets respond to more rich by creating higher end services and products. Some have subjective value (fashion), some are luxuries (massages are beneficial, but not critical for most), but many are practical.
For instance, computing hardware, internet access options, expensive healthcare interventions, medications, private transport growth relative to public transport, etc.
4. And the rich also perversely put unrealistic social and employer pressures on the lifestyles of the non-rich. I.e. dress and personal technology shibboleths, etc.
—-
It is worth pointing out that the large role of real estate as a passive wealth compounder, tracking up with the product of increased overall economy and inequality growth, is perverse enough.
But the common arrangement of property taxes that tax both land (the limited and exclusionary asset) and its development (the non-exclusionary asset we should not be disincentivizing in any way), adds another perversity to land economics.
When a problem compounds already, it doesn’t need any more perverse incentives!
If property taxes were replaced by just land taxes (renormalized to be revenue neutral) it would:
1. increase the return on development, and
2. increase the costs of holding (absolutely or relatively) undeveloped land!
Which would both increase development (i.e. housing, multi-housing) and increase supply of (relatively) unused land.
This would be a net win for those who are impacted or concerned about inequality, but also those with a libertarian or capitalist viewpoint. As it removes a wealth tax. (Which isn’t just a double tax, but an unlimited repetitive tax on the same already taxed/unrealized non-exclusionary wealth!)
Whether rich or poor, improving one’s property with already taxed capital or self-supplied labor, would not perversely raise one’s taxes.