Why is there a reason to tax real estate property at 1% of its valuation per year? Same arguments apply, in addition to the one I gave (grounding valuations) which you dismiss without explanation.

> Remember that patents eventually run out, in which case they are 'taxed at 100%'. :)

First of all, so what if they run out? Other kinds of property also depreciate and we still tax them.

Second, copyright has effectively ceased to run out around 1970. So there is every reason to tax IP.

"Why is there a reason to tax real estate property at 1% of its valuation per year? "

Because there is an acute supply problem in Vancouver real estate. Making them pay 1% for empty homes incents people to rent them out.

The same arguments do not apply at all to IP.

"First of all, so what if they run out? Other kinds of property also depreciate and we still tax them."

'Depreciation' and 'expiration of patents' are not the same thing at all.

A 'patent' is the exclusive right to own a piece of IP for a period of time, after which it's public domain. It's basically pointless to add on a 'wealth tax' to a patent - there is already a tax on royalties and that makes sense.

When you buy your property, it does not become 'public domain' after 10 years - it's a completely different economic vehicle.

"Second, copyright has effectively ceased to run out around 1970. So there is every reason to tax IP."

Copyright and patents are totally different things.

Someone who created a unique song, has the right to protect it for quite some time. Moreover - it was 'made famous' by them, i.e. it's a brand that is invested in.

Disney should be able to 'own' Mickey Mouse forever - they created it, and they back it. They spend billions supporting 'Mickey' and there's no reason someone else should be able to rip them off by selling clones. In much the same way fashion brands are protected.

Drugs, algorithms, other kinds of solutions, there is definitely a 'public good' in those things being public after some time, so it's fair that IP protections run out.

In New York you pay 1% property tax/year (effectively), and it is quite universal. I think vancouver's 1% on empty is an addition to any property taxes. I was referring to the prevalent 1% tax on property which is applied to cars, places with unlimited apartments etc.

Disney should be able to own Mickey trademarks for as long as they maintain them - but they shouldn't be able to tell me not to copy or remix Steamboat Willy. They got 50 years of monopoly on it they were promised when they released it. It should be public domain now.

Are you that blind to the obvious?

People don't live in intellectual property. They live in homes.

There's a crisis of affordable housing in Vancouver. There is not a crisis of affordable intellectual property.

There are property taxes everywhere, not just in Vancouver. This is what I was referring to.

And actually, there IS a crisis of intellectual property. It is not a question of affordability, but rather of frivolousness, overreach and submarining. A tax is likely to solve some aspects of that.

The tax solves nothing, just as Vancouver's tax won't actually address the problem. It'll just generate more tax revenue.

Intellectual property is such a vast, ethereal concept that even pinning it down is damned near impossible.

That picture your kid drew that's on your fridge, do you pay tax on that? What if you put it on Instagram? What if your picture goes viral? What if it's co-opted by Wal-Mart and put on a bag, so you file a cease and desist? What if you make your own merchandise? There's such a slippery scale here that to tax everything, unilaterally, is absurd, and pinning down when something is impractical.

Are you purposely ignoring the discussion? There was no one, especially not me, talking about taxing the picture your kid drew. You're arguing a strawman.