• HandwovenConsensus@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m confused. By tax rate, you must mean the percentage of the taxable amount.

    In that case, land ownership being correlated with wealth and income isn’t sufficient to prove that LVT is progressive.

    Consumption spending also correlates with wealth and income, but a sales tax is usually considered regressive.

    So it’s possible that the LVT can be progressive, but only if the percentage of wealth spent on land rises with income. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but what is your basis for believing it is?

      • HandwovenConsensus@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not the person you’ve been talking to, by the way.

        I’m just asking you to explain your logic, or the logic of the entire economic community if that’s what it is. If you’re so certain that what you’re saying is true, it shouldn’t be that hard to explain the logic behind such a conclusion.