Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Does Georgism work? Is land a big deal?

astralcodexten.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 375 posts

Re: Does Georgism work? Is land a big deal?

#241

Post by pydry »

sokoloff wrote: post #2

I look forward to reading the second part, especially if it’s going to argue that tenants will somehow be able to use the land without paying the land rent. In any case, I believe a land value (or other property) tax would face significant (possibly insurmountable) Constitutional challenge to levy this federally in the US absent an amendment. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/inte...

>I look forward to reading the second part, especially if it’s going to argue that tenants will somehow be able to use the land without paying the land rent.

Tenants already pay a 100% land value tax. They just pay it direct to landlords.

All an LVT would do is redirect this flow of wealth into community/city/state coffers rather than to land / mortgage backed security owners.

Re: Does Georgism work? Is land a big deal?

#242

Post by pydry »

MisterMower wrote: post #26

“But won't landlords just raise the rent to make up for the LVT, passing the burden of the tax on to the tenants? Georgists say no, because land is special in that it is scarce and nobody can make any more of it. Indeed, LVT is a rare form of taxation that actually boosts the economy, because it discourages rent-seeking and speculation. Some Georgists even go so far as to say that LVT can raise enough revenue to repl…

>That means landlords will suddenly act irrationally and not pass costs onto their tenants, choosing instead to operate at a loss.

Businesses never choose to operate at a loss. They just do.

Rents are set by supply and demand. LVT affects neither the supply of housing nor the demand for a place to live.

Landlords would scramble to do a number of things but their hands would be tied on rents since supply and demand is, y'know, a thing. "Choosing" to make a profit isn't.

Re: Does Georgism work? Is land a big deal?

#243

Post by pydry »

panick21_ wrote: post #133

A simple flat tax is clearly a far superior system in every single way. If you are really hardcore about richer people paying even larger part then simply make the curve slightly progressive. If you want poorer people to pay even less make the minimum number required for max tax higher. This would make the overall tax system 1000x simpler releasing a gigantic amount of labor and would allow IRS to actually check effe…

The flat tax was designed to be regressive. Why take a regressive tax and then try to patch it with 1000 difficult to implement hacks to make it progressive? Why not just use taxes that are naturally progressive?

The flat tax is the most transparently self serving idea from the rich since trickle down.

Re: Does Georgism work? Is land a big deal?

#244

Post by pydry »

intrasight wrote: post #169

We have LVT in my county. And it changes - nothing. So what am I missing? Why is this even discussed? A much more interesting discussion is to ask the question: Should there be no private land ownership. That's the case in many places. In such locals, the ownership right is in the long-term lease of that land. And it changes - nothing. Tax on private property is the price we pay to have the property protected by a po…

If it's Hong Kong then it's 3% which is low enough that yeah, it changes nothing.

Since you didn't actually say where you live, though, it's impossible to say what you are "missing". The question clearly wasn't asked in good faith.

Re: Does Georgism work? Is land a big deal?

#245

Post by Dracophoenix »

djokkataja wrote: post #216
larsiusprime wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like domain names?

In terms of ownership structure, yeah, that's pretty similar.

That just creates artificial scarcity. What's stopping anyone from building out another DNS system?

Re: Does Georgism work? Is land a big deal?

#246

Post by pydry »

zapataband1 wrote: post #75

Really thorough argument. While it seems like a great idea, the last bit is what gets me: the wealthy owns the vast majority of the land. Our gov is effectively captured by financial interests. At what point will the rich give this up? We can come up with a million reasons for taxation but the rich will evade them like it's their job. The problem is still wealth inequality caused by greed. I had never heard of Georgi…

If history is a guide, large scale land dispossession of the wealthy is usually met with extreme violence as a "last resort".

The US invaded Cuba as a demonstration of solidarity with the landed gentry, as well as an attempt to "prove" that land dispossession couldn't work and because some of the dispossessed land was owned by US citizens.

This kind of thing is what the rich is already afraid of happening if they lose control of the reins of government, which is why so much $$ is funneled into political campaigns and media. This is so they don't have to respond with violence.

Re: Does Georgism work? Is land a big deal?

#247

Post by pydry »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #88

Any transition to a LVT should accompany one-time compensation to existing land owners. The same should apply to any other repeal of rent-seeking institutions, whether it's anti-labor-competitive laws privileging labor unions, licensure barriers privileging taxi medallion holders, etc. The British used this method to end slavery throughout their empire, which meant: 1. much more rapid end to slavery, due to less poli…

This is essentially saying that the rich must be kept rich to prevent them from hurting us. You're saying that they must be paid protection money.

Slavery wasn't as big a part of the economy of the British Empire as it was to the American south.

In any case the US made back a lot of the losses of the war during the period of reconstruction.

Re: Does Georgism work? Is land a big deal?

#248

Post by Dracophoenix »

nabla9 wrote: post #62

Adam Smith’s definition of 'free market' wasn’t freedom from governments, it was freedom from rentiers. Land is big deal. Value of land comes mostly from it's surrounding infrastructure. Taxing it is one of the least harmful taxes.

In Adam Smith's time, the biggest rentier of them all was the Imperial era British government along with its patrons, titled members of the nobility and the landed gentry. Even in Smith's time, free markets did mean freedom from government interference.

Re: Does Georgism work? Is land a big deal?

#249

Post by mcny »

lmm wrote: post #190
whakim wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why not tax gold or bitcoin or the Mona Lisa if the main difference between taxable assets and non-taxable assets is scarcity?

The value of gold is mostly the cost of labour etc. to extract it; to the extent that it's just the value of the land that it was dug out of, sure, I'd support taxing it. Most Georgists support extending the land value tax to other kinds of economic land e.g. slices of radio spectrum. But physical land is the big one that affects society (particularly because everyone needs some land to live on), so it's the most imp…

» Most Georgists support extending the land value tax to other kinds of economic land e.g. slices of radio spectrum.

This makes me wonder, do roads pay land tax? I think railway tracks do but I'm not sure about roads.

Personally I think more of the spectrum should be like 2.4GHz, 5 GHz (and soon 6GHz?). No auctions. No owners.

Re: Does Georgism work? Is land a big deal?

#250

Post by panick21_ »

pydry wrote: post #243
panick21_ wrote: post #133

A simple flat tax is clearly a far superior system in every single way. If you are really hardcore about richer people paying even larger part then simply make the curve slightly progressive. If you want poorer people to pay even less make the minimum number required for max tax higher. This would make the overall tax system 1000x simpler releasing a gigantic amount of labor and would allow IRS to actually check effe…

The flat tax was designed to be regressive. Why take a regressive tax and then try to patch it with 1000 difficult to implement hacks to make it progressive? Why not just use taxes that are naturally progressive? The flat tax is the most transparently self serving idea from the rich since trickle down.

Lol, so if you change a fixed number into a slanting line its '1000 difficult to implement hacks'. That literally replacing a fixed number with a simple function(income) -> %. However there are also good reasons not to do that.

And the tax is not regressive, you clearly haven't read about it other what other people who have not read about it.

Post reply on HN