BlameThePeacock

Land is still zoned. If it can only be used for farming due to the zoning, then its not as desirable to most people and therefore has a lower lease rate from the government.

If the government decides to change the use of that land, the rental price would increase and then the farmer would likely give it up and lease something else.

It's not really that different from the current property tax reductions that apply to farms.

My hot take of the month:

Nobody should own land but the government. You should lease it directly from the government. In order to lease land, you should bid for it in an auction based on the monthly amount you will pay the government for it, plus a fixed cost for any buildings already on the property that is set by a government assessor.

The monthly amount should then be regularly updated (probably yearly) based on the value of the property (using effectively the same method for valuation we have for doing property tax assessments already)

If you build a building on land you are leasing, the building is effectively owned by you for the duration you continue to lease it. When you decide not to live there anymore, you don't sell the land or the buildings to anyone though, the government just takes control of them. The government can then assess and auction that property off to a new leaser and then transfers the fixed building assessed amount to the previous owner. The government makes no money off the building components transaction, and therefore has no reason to under or overvalue the amount.

The total amount the government leases ALL land should replace all current Property taxes, Income Taxes, and Sales taxes (remove those three taxes entirely) currently being collected, and then on top of that fund a universal basic income (including a partial amount for kids). This factors into the yearly updates to the pricing.

Business taxes should be re-imagined around this new paradigm, but would require some more thought in order to handle businesses that use zero land (foreign entities) or have a limited footprint in the country.

Renting (from an existing landlord who is leasing the property from the government) still exists, but landlords can no longer make money by just waiting for property values to increase over time. They have to pay the same amount per month as every other land owner based on the same amount of land in the same area. They become essentially just a long-term hotel business where you pay for the convenience of not having to pay upfront for the building or deal with the maintenance.

In terms of a transition over, current owners should be given a monthly number from the government to keep their current property rather than having to go through an auction process. The value of their building can be reimbursed if they move under the new system. Current owners essentially lose the entirety of the value of their land, which for a lot of people would actually be quite significant, especially those who have had the land for a long time, have too much land, or have too much land in a desirable location, or some combination of the above. Condo or other high-density owners, despite "owning" a portion of the land would actually not be impacted very much, since the monthly amounts are scaled on land, not the buildings.

This whole system has some serious benefits for everyone involved (except current owners of signficant land)

First, the removal of private land owners removes the massive drain that real estate is having on our economy. It's mostly non-productive capital sitting there earning money without doing a damn thing, and removing the incentives around investing in it will make it massively property ownership affordable.

Second, the removal of income and sales taxes is a huge economic boost for the population. You work for $20 an hour, you get to keep the vast majority of it (still probably some minor stuff for union dues, employment insurance, etc.) If you choose to spend that renting more housing, great, you're paying into the tax base to make life easier for everyone. If you are happy with a smaller property, then great you are leaving more space for others and get to keep more of your money.

Third, the pricing of land and it's return via a basic income (including kids) will drive people to be more likely to use the correct amount of land. Fuck the Boomers with their 3500 square foot 5-bedroom house on a 10,000 square foot lot in town that they raised 2 kids but that currently only has 2 occupants. Move your ass out to something more reasonable, and make a space available for a family that's raising their kids now.

Tl;dr: Private ownership of land shouldn't exist, burn it to the ground and make things better for everyone by taxing property properly.

Disclosure: I own a home, this would hurt me. I still think it's a good idea because my kids will not be able to afford a home at the current prices, let alone at the prices in 10 years when they start looking, and that's more of a problem than the pain implementing this would cause me.

It's "fewer than" not "fewer then"

Protect workers from ai?

Wtf...

Are we back to buggy whips again?

It could be adjusted to age to prevent "farming" your children.

That being said, the costs of having children being downloaded only to parents is the root cause of why first world countries are having such severe issues with birth rates right now.

Fewer children means fewer people in the future, and less future economic potential. I'm not saying we need to keep growing at a stupid rate, but declining population is a huge problem.

Just look at what's happening in Japan right now.

It's only if you look under 25 here...

Think about that critically for a moment. Do children not have needs? Shelter, food, clothing?

Why should they not get a basic income?

Had the same problem, now I've got a touch of grey hair at my temples and it has helped immensely.

I got carded for alchohol up into my late 30s.

Why only adults?

Yes, you're right about the savings on other programs assuming the amount for the basic income is high enough to cover those people.

Labor is too expensive for US manufacturing without significant price increases, and given those price increases consumers are purchasing fewer total goods because they simply can't afford more. Too much of their income is going to housing and food costs, neither of which are highly reliant on manufacturing jobs. Consumer spending in dollars may be up, but total goods consumed has to be down at this point.

UBI is funded by taxes, it's actually not has hard as it seems because people always do the math in the "logical" way and it isn't actually the right way to consider the cost.

If you give a UBI of say $10,000 a year to everyone (let's just keep it simple) for every citizen in Canada (let's say 40 million people) you'd think that the total cost would be $400 Billion dollars a year, right?

Except that's not how it actually works, what you'd do at the same time is raise taxes (preferably on property, but stupid politicians gonna put it on income instead) so that it balances around a specific income level getting nothing, with people above that level paying in, and people below that amount receiving a benefit. So if you've got a family of 4 (2 adults, 2 kids) with a median family income of say $80k (again, just keeping it simple) you'd raise their taxes by $30,000 a year, and then give them $40,000 a year in basic income. Then you've got a well-to-do family making $150,000 a year that pays $60,000 more in taxes, and only gets $40,000 a year back.

The total "cost" of the program is actually only the net amount transferred. It's easy to understand this if you think through a situation, when you tax someone $40,000, then give them $40,000 the total cost of that transfer is zero.

If you tax one person $20,000, give them $10,000, tax another person $10,000, and give them $10,000, and tax a third person $0 (not working) and give them $10,000 then the ACTUAL cost for the whole program is only $10,000, despite total taxes being $30,000, and total payouts being $30,000. So instead of costing $400 Billion for all of Canada, depending on what number they balance the whole thing around, it could be a reasonable amount and still cost under $100 billion a year.

There's actually a study from the Parliamentary Budget Office of Canada that outlines the more realistic cost.

This would apply similarly to any other country attempting to implement such a policy.