>Because they are? There are whole industries that are more or less total BS. Whatever you do for these companies you are pretty much not contributing anything worthwhile to the society.
Well, according to you maybe. The customers/patrons of the company probably have a differing view.
Precisely why the LVT is inherently flawed and regressive, and prone to abuse and exploitation by the rich and powerful, instead of being dictated by the aggregate market demand of regular citizens.
>Empirical data from the US and France, however, indicates that ownership of land value (in absolute terms) is negatively correlated to the social welfare weight. Middle income households would pay relatively more land value taxes than high income households, but less in absolute terms.
Unfortunately, the "relatively more" aspect (to one's income) is what matters.
LVT is predicated on this idea landowners will be forced to "make efficient" land for common good, as an empty lot is taxed the same as the skyscraper. In practice, this just makes desirable areas unaffordable for the middle class and completely forces out the lower class. e.g. it _makes explicit_ into the tax laws, what is already happening in practice with property tax.
property taxes in a desirable area say "sorry you're poor and your house isn't nice, but you pay less tax than your rich neighbor". LVT says "don't let the door hit you on your poor ass on your way out, but if you want to stay you can pay the same tax as Mr Moneybags next door".
Not to mention the irony that LVT actually decreases the value of the land.
>If buyers know that they’ll have to pay £10,000 in tax on a piece of land they valued at £100,000, they’ll only be willing to pay £90,000 for that land. The tax lowers the returns from land ownership which is reflected in the value of the land. The current owners of land are the ones who bear the full cost of future tax bills.
Again this disproportionately affects the middle class landowner and unceremoniously kicks the lower-class former-landowner who inherited the property out of the landowner class.
LVT is ultimately the billionaire's dream. It's a dressed up neo-Eminent Domain, pretending to be progressive while being punitive to those without means.
Worst of all* is the suggestion LVT it discourages land speculation - it actually does the exact opposite. It severely exacerbates speculation, akin to how people scalp concert tickets or limited edition Jordan shoes today.
*there's also countless issues with trusting the government to evaluate the land; the issue of value vs. area; subjectivness of varying types of land value from agricultural farmland vs. industrial land vs. service-oriented vs. transport/logistics vs. inherent value from resources, but "make the poor family living in a shack pay the same tax as the rich guy who build a skyscraper" is sufficiently flawed without going in depth into those issues.
Getting rid of 1031 would be a good start. But contrary to what most people/economists falsely proclaim, land value taxes are actually a regressive, punitive tax to those who commit the grave sin of living in an area that other people decide to gentrify. A complete non-solution to the problem.
What's your suggestion to eliminate landlords from the equation, then? CCP-style regulations where there is no citizen landownership? Only the government is allowed to own land? Property owners should be forced to operate as nonprofits and maintain the property, but donate all profits to taxes?
Asset multiples will collapse if unemployment rises significantly and the labor market weakens. Surely the investor class will still come out ahead, but it's interesting they seem to be ignoring this fact (except Warren Buffett, who's cash reserve to equity ratio is far greater than most of his peers)
Right - and this resistance against RTO from a basis “companies are doing it just because of sunk costs” has a logical conclusion companies should increase outsourcing further.
This doesn't add up to me. The priorities of corporate executives are to please the board of directors. BoD priorities are to please shareholders/investors. Shareholders/investors are pleased by growth/profits. That is, the investors care not about "how things look" but instead how they actually are, as in quarterly reports, share price, etc.
If employees are happier and more efficient working from home, it satisfies the priorities of all the above parties. If RTO makes people unhappy and either less productive OR makes them not want to work for that employer, it goes against the incentives and priorities of all the above parties.
>I think it is illuminating to consider how these debates would go very differently if employers where the ones whose budgets paid for all the hours/fuel spent in office commutes
A significant number of employers do allocate budget and incur expenses for employee commuter benefits. And unclaimed commuter benefits results in cost savings for the employer, I'm not really sure I understand the point being made here.
So let's say they go full remote for jobs that allow it - why should they hire you, then? Why not hire someone in Vancouver for 80% of your salary, or Mexico for 60%, or Brazil for 40%?
>It's not the perfect medium because it requires living in some of the most expensive real estate markets on the planet.
This applies to the entire United States if everything that could were to go fully remote. Why hire someone for 6 figures in <a US state> when you could hire someone in Brazil to do it for 40% of the salary?
I am not sure I find this explanation convincing. If a corporation thinks it could increase profits without RTO and after eating office real-estate losses, it'll do so. The real estate companies and the middle managers do not make decisions for these companies. If wasted office costs are $10M, but more happy, productive, and efficient remote employees make an additional $20M, there wouldn't be RTO.
Are certain cities (like NYC) taxing unoccupied office space? If so, how much? This information is much more convincing than a claim that companies are enforcing RTO to make middle managers feel like they are "presiding over their kingdom".
> The UK structures water provision as regional monopolies. This should be a hilarious joke but it's the reality. You can't change water company without living in a different region. There is no effective market competition for water provision in the UK.
This is how utilities/water work in the vast majority of the US. I’m unclear why you think this is strange? At the very least, it doesn’t explain the UK’s problems.
Not even going to touch the bait in your statement but calling Kelly Rowland a hip-hop artist is an exceedingly bizarre statement. It would be like calling Blink 182 hair metal, or calling Coldplay classic rock.
Well, according to you maybe. The customers/patrons of the company probably have a differing view.