The article kind of lost me on the taxation methods. I agree that private property and its whole conceptualization in a capitalist world is problematic. Simply making people pay tribute to the state as a solution is unoriginal. I am so shocked that nobody has come up other ways to deal with it. Like, say people can't own more than X number of properties at one time? Why is taxation always the solution? It doesn't solve the problem, really. Theoretically, if you can afford to pay the taxes on the properties, you can own all the properties. It might be difficult to do, but somebody would find a way.
Socialism
Beehaw's community for socialists, communists, anarchists, and non-authoritarian leftists (this means anti-capitalists) of all stripes. A place for all leftist and labor news and discussion, as long as you're nice about it.
Non-socialists are welcome to come to learn, though it's hard to get to in-depth discussions if the community is constantly fighting over the basics. We ask that non-socialists please be respectful and try not to turn this into a "left vs right" debate forum by asking leading questions or by trying to draw others into a fight.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
While this is sort of a tax, it also has elements of common ownership because it reduces the exclusion power of capital owners due to the mandated transfer. A worker coop that has the funds can take the capital and use it in production. They do not have to negotiate to buy the property. The problem with other rules is that they will have loopholes that the rich will exploit. The revenue can be used to fund a basic income. The entity that receives the revenue can be non-state.