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

281–290 of 375 posts

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

#281

Post by spurgu »

panick21_ wrote: post #230
spurgu wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to agree, and definitely on the surface of it. But what about for example incentives to cut down on carbon emissions, how would you achieve those? Or stopping investors for buying up all the great real estate in an area and boost up the rent prices? I believe that there needs to be some "punishment" taxes, to regulate things that might otherwise go out of hand (which is important in order for capitalism to fun…

> I believe that there needs to be some "punishment" taxes, to regulate things that might otherwise go out of hand (which is important in order for capitalism to function well). First of all I don't think that actually is true. Second, even assuming this is true. Using the tax system is about the worst possible way of achieving these things. Making the tax system complex to micromanage all possible situations on a fe…

> Well its % based so its already progressive as in you pay far more if you are richer. So if you want to also pay higher % if you are richer.

This is just flat out wrong. With a flat tax you don't pay a higher % if you are richer, you pay a higher amount.

It stings just as much to lose 10% if you make 1k/month as when you make 100k/month. Whereas with the latter you're left with 90k, arguably much more than needed for a comfortable life, so you could easily pay 30% without a noticeable change in your life quality (or future business endeavors).

Of course if you have a shitty government then subjectively any tax is gonna go to waste and this is a pointless discussion. We're talking about an imaginary society here where we're making things better through a simpler system and the government can actually get things done fairly efficiently.

I simply believe the answers lie somewhere in the middle. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Redistributing the taxes sounds like a good idea whenever we're talking "punishment taxes", but... you also need to consider who has to take care of and pay for the mess created (if someone pollutes a river). So from that perspective the opposite makes sense, that the "punishment taxes" goes to the state, to fix things.

Ultimately I think it's a question of size of society/government. A small enough society is self-organizing. The larger it becomes the more structure/regulation it needs to not break apart, and at some point it becomes inefficient. We just need to watch out for increasing complexity, and make active efforts to reduce it (that's something few world governments are doing right now).

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

#282

Post by i_haz_rabies »

wrycoder wrote: post #273
ac29 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone needs a certain number of square meters to live, work, and grow food in (or indirectly, for others to grow food for them). The same isn't true for the assets you mentioned.

Fly over the US and observe that the place is mostly empty. Land is not the problem. Lack of economic opportunity and initiative are the problems.

It's almost entirely "used." The places that look "empty" are pasture, fields, private timberland and national parks, and the few remaining pockets of actual nature should probably be left the hell alone.

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

#283

Post by i_haz_rabies »

nickff wrote: post #157
derekjdanserl wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See: Owning huge amounts of land is uniquely antisocial . The point here is to maintain a society and some things must come first, namely material things which paintings are not. Of course, art history shows us time and time again the vital importance of material sustenance in creating and preserving works of art. If you really care about art, you have to care about the material foundations that make rich and meaning…

You emphasize "antisocial", and I am not sure why. I looked it up to double-check, and the main definition is "contrary to the laws and customs of society; devoid of or antagonistic to sociable instincts or practices." Could you please explain what you mean by "uniquely antisocial"? > "If you really care about art, you have to care about the material foundations that make rich and meaningful social livelihoods possib…

I'll take the 10k acres, wherever it may be: meadow, forest, desert, wherever, and enjoy not only the ability to sustain myself, but the beauty and meaning that one can only find in nature. The same beauty and meaning that every artist from the first ape to feel artistry to now has tried, and failed, to fully capture.

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

#284

Post by sokoloff »

runnerup wrote: post #8
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...

> tenants will somehow be able to use the land without paying the land rent. I believe proponents of Georgist Land Taxes generally believe that rents are already as high as they can be. This seems reasonable for areas with housing shortage, as housing is a very inelastic commodity as far as commodities go. However, it might not be a good assumption for areas with a surplus of housing. I do know (multiple!) people who…

> I believe proponents of Georgist Land Taxes generally believe that rents are already as high as they can be.

Rents are a function of supply and demand and demand may very well be near a point where there is not much more willingness to pay on the part of tenants.

That doesn't mean that arbitrary changes to supply will leave resulting rents unaffected. (If government makes rental property durably unattractive as an investment, we should expect the supply of that property to diminish.)

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

#285

Post by DarylZero »

gbhn wrote: post #160
MrPowers wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great question. Land taxes are great because there is less of a deadweight loss. Governments need money to operate. All else equal, we should get governments the money they need without wasting people's time to comply with complicated tax laws. Humans also generally agree that progressive taxation is a good idea. Rich people should pay more to fund the government. Rich people own a lot of land, so they'd pa…

Another key factor is enforcement cost. Enforcing a land tax is really easy for a government. You just... Go there and get it. There's no moving the land offshore or having complex relationships or offsets. If someone won't pay the government just assigns the ownership to someone who will and goes on. Compliance costs with many other taxes are quite high.

>the government just assigns the ownership to someone who will

...and physically evicts the previous tenant.

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

#286

Post by DarylZero »

bradleyjg wrote: post #41
MrPowers wrote: post #7

I'm not a huge fan of how deadweight loss is defined in the article: > virtually all economists agree that land value tax has zero "deadweight loss"–a fancy word for a drag on the economy that makes certain activities no longer profitable Property taxes tax the land + the building. Building taxes are complicated to assess. They require tax assessments, appraisers, tax code, accountants to compute depreciation schedul…

Land taxes are far far more difficult to calculate than property taxes. Impossible to do well in some cases. To know what land and the buildings on it are worth you can look to what people are willing to pay to buy them. There’s no similarly straightforward way to value the separate parts. So you’ll end up with a lot more wasted expert time for a less accurate result.

Actually there are empty plots bought and sold all the time.

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

#287

Post by sethammons »

sjwalter wrote: post #151
MrPowers wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great question. Land taxes are great because there is less of a deadweight loss. Governments need money to operate. All else equal, we should get governments the money they need without wasting people's time to comply with complicated tax laws. Humans also generally agree that progressive taxation is a good idea. Rich people should pay more to fund the government. Rich people own a lot of land, so they'd pa…

> Humans also generally agree that progressive taxation is a good idea. Fairly bold assertion. I'd say most humans don't even really know what progressive taxation means. > Rich people should pay more to fund the government. A static tax regime (i.e., taxes calculated by a simple fixed percentage of wealth or income) leads to the same outcome. E.g., in a 10% fixed tax regime, someone making $10k/a pays $1k in tax and…

It comes down to the purchasing power. If you tKe $100 from someone with only $1000, it affects their ability to live more than taking $100M from a billionaire

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

#288

Post by DarylZero »

lelanthran wrote: post #166
dsizzle wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I just looked up my own property tax records and there's no breakdown, so not sure how common that is. That said, it is done for property insurance, so I think your point that it's already done stands.

> FWIW, I just looked up my own property tax records and there's no breakdown, so not sure how common that is. > > That said, it is done for property insurance, so I think your point that it's already done stands. I dunno how useful that will be - my insurance is based on how much it would cost to rebuild the house if it burned down. This lead to the comedic result that what I paid for the house at the time was about…

That comedic situation is exactly the reason your insurance works like that. The insurance company knows it's in your interest to burn it down and sell the empty plot so they only insure it in a way that prevents that.

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

#289

Post by amablue »

roenxi wrote: post #213
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 post didn't use the word scarcity. Land isn't even scarce, most land is effectively uninhabited compared to the population densities most people live at. Humanity at large is not short of land. Land is quite unique. It is the resource with the weakest argument that humans produce it. Gold, for example, requires human labour to be dug up. Bitcoin requires humans to run machines. The Mona Lisa requires humans to pa…

For what it's worth, it's not uncommon for Georgists to also favor extraction taxes for natural resources like gold.

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

#290

Post by theluketaylor »

pdonis wrote: post #125
MrPowers wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I agree with this: > since that number is not based on actual sales of the land in question, it's just hand-waving Actual land is sold in a lot of markets. That sets a great benchmark for "comparable transaction" types of valuation analyses which tend to be the most reliable. If one acre of land is sold, there is a great baseline for the whole surrounding area. I passed all 3 CFA exams and agree it's not…

> Actual land is sold in a lot of markets. But much more land with improvements on it is also sold, and that's the land that all these hand-waving formulas claim to be determining the "value" of--not the total value of land + improvements, but just the value of the land itself.

The local cost of construction per sq ft to replace an improvement is reasonably easy to arrive at. So is the annual cost to maintain an improvement. Then simply subtract from purchase price. The toughest part is making sure the process isn't corrupted and some people get an assessed land value far less or more than it is actually worth.

It likely wouldn't work with real estate, but low cost motorsports has a simple solution to this problem. If there is a $1000 limit on the value of the car before all the standard safety additions, then the owner has to accept $1000 from any other competitor for the car. This massively disincentives anyone from undervaluing their race car as it will simply be purchased for way less than it's worth. In real estate this would just result in wealthy people snapping up anything they thought was even slightly undervalued. Maybe value purchases can only happen when challenging a valuation with strong court-backed protection for the owner to ensure the valuation has been applied justly.

Post reply on HN