I’m not sure what you mean. You can list something at market price rather than how you actually value it, but that opens you up to significant risk from market volatility and malicious bids (from competitors looking to cripple your business, rich people you’ve offended, etc). If sales cannot actually be forced this seems more workable, but still exploitable by malicious actors.
Yeah I think I got a bit confused with the wording. My point is that a Harberger tax is a tax on the opportunity cost of you holding the thing being taxed, so if you are genuinely the single person who benefits most from holding the thing being taxed, then no one else would want to buy it from you.
I think unless they explicitly want to harm or threaten you, was the point—which incidentally is often a situation not accounted for in the foundational assumptions of many economic models (utility functions generally considered to be independent and monotonic in resources and so on).
Good thing you’re only incentivized to sell at market price then, not how much value you’d assign personally!
I’m not sure what you mean. You can list something at market price rather than how you actually value it, but that opens you up to significant risk from market volatility and malicious bids (from competitors looking to cripple your business, rich people you’ve offended, etc). If sales cannot actually be forced this seems more workable, but still exploitable by malicious actors.
Yeah I think I got a bit confused with the wording. My point is that a Harberger tax is a tax on the opportunity cost of you holding the thing being taxed, so if you are genuinely the single person who benefits most from holding the thing being taxed, then no one else would want to buy it from you.
I think unless they explicitly want to harm or threaten you, was the point—which incidentally is often a situation not accounted for in the foundational assumptions of many economic models (utility functions generally considered to be independent and monotonic in resources and so on).