The seller does, because if the government removed that specific tax, it changes nothing about the market value of the home (competing buyers would also not have to pay that tax, buyer capacity to pay doesn't change either way).
Absent the tax, the seller would simply recoup more of the value of their property.
I think the confusion here is that there exists an economic truth, and then a separate and conflicting language/branding around this economic truth to make it more palatable to people having their money taken from them at gunpoint by the state.
I'm bringing up economic reality, you're rebutting this with the government marketing language.
Yes, I know 'employer contributions' is a clever trick to make people believe they aren't paying as much to government as they are, but in economic reality they are paying for this.
It is in general the same though for wages, as usually companies are not hiring remotely all over Europe and can choose where the tax is paid, so it is the same for every employee.
I feel like "having their money taken from them at gunpoint" is rage bait language.
Have you ever considered that you benefit from public spending? Infrastructure, etc.
This is not intended as rage bait, I am again just distilling marketing language to reality.
If you don't pay the money your government decides you owe them, they will arrest you and put you in prison if you do not comply in virtually all countries. This is fact, not emotional language.
And yes, I fully acknowledge that authoritarian centralization can achieve the most efficient outcomes in certain areas (like infrastructure, military, utilities, etc).
But let's not lie to ourselves and pretend the government is not a giant monopoly that forces you to buy its products at gunpoint whether they are good or not. Allowing too much % of the GDP be captured by this monopoly, always ends in declining living standards, runaway debts, exit controls and ultimately collapse...every single time it has been tried.
HN doesn't need more pro-government voices, as it is already a a left-leaning audience. It needs the opposite, which I'm happy to calmly provide even if constantly being downvoted.
Absent the tax, the seller would simply recoup more of the value of their property.
I think the confusion here is that there exists an economic truth, and then a separate and conflicting language/branding around this economic truth to make it more palatable to people having their money taken from them at gunpoint by the state.
I'm bringing up economic reality, you're rebutting this with the government marketing language.
Yes, I know 'employer contributions' is a clever trick to make people believe they aren't paying as much to government as they are, but in economic reality they are paying for this.