Live data from Hacker News

Tax the Land

vox.com

31–40 of 613 posts

Re: Tax the Land

#31
post #11
post #7

There is something deeply wrong with the fact that you can buy-to-rent a property and immediately turn up a profit, essentially inserting yourself as a parasitic middleman in the process, providing no service, and extracting an economic rent.

Anyone who has been a landlord can attest "providing no service" isn't true at all.

[deleted]

Re: Tax the Land

#32
Wait! We voted for more taxes on land owners not renters, why are the rents going up!?!

Vox is a dumpster fire and the owners have been hyperbolic rage bait farmers for over a decade.

Re: Tax the Land

#33

In my mind, LVT only works properly when you've ripped out every other tax: income, sales, capital, you name it. Absolutely no more friction and warped incentives. Divide the government budget by the weighted land values and tax accordingly. But that could never work in our world. There would be too much temptation to add a small tax here for this other thing, and then it snowballs, and then we're back to where we st…

For consistency you also have to tax accumulated past labour and intellectual property.

I'm very fond of self-declared valuations with enforced sale back to the commons if anyone is willing to front the value.

Add a tax free threshold a bit above the mean wealth so anyone can declare their 100k house is worth $1m or whatever without risking paying the costs of moving due to someone maliciously forcing sale.

Re: Tax the Land

#34
post #11
post #7

There is something deeply wrong with the fact that you can buy-to-rent a property and immediately turn up a profit, essentially inserting yourself as a parasitic middleman in the process, providing no service, and extracting an economic rent.

Anyone who has been a landlord can attest "providing no service" isn't true at all.

But I have been a landlord, I rented out my old apartment for several years after I moved to my new home. I don't pretend the income I got was for "services rendered". It is trivially easy to demonstrate that: you can outsource all tasks (cleaning, maintenance, even management and accounting) and still turn up a profit, which implies that this profit is entirely due to your monopoly on capital wrt. the rentee, and not due to actual material services rendered.

Re: Tax the Land

#35
post #7

There is something deeply wrong with the fact that you can buy-to-rent a property and immediately turn up a profit, essentially inserting yourself as a parasitic middleman in the process, providing no service, and extracting an economic rent.

If that were the case, why would someone else not bid $1 more to buy that house and rent it out? Then someone else would logically be willing to bid $1 more than that, until there was no easy profit left… I think the answer is that much of the landlord’s initial profit is more or less income from working a job (buying, insuring, readying, showing, screening, fixing, collecting, etc) as evidenced by the share that a p…

>I think the answer is that much of the landlord’s initial profit is more or less income from working a job [...]

It can simultaneously be true that being a landlord is a bunch of work, and that is being parasitic middleman. That's because being a landlord is composed of two parts: providing access to the land, and building/maintaining a shelter that sits on top of the land. People generally aren't upset with the latter, but are with the former. Lars Doucet explains it more in depth:

>[...] don't landlords deserve compensation for their work? What about Ms. Nguyen, the nice lady who manages your apartment block and went the extra mile for you when your A/C went out last summer?

>I like Ms. Nguyen too, but let's contrast her with Mr. Slumlord, who owns the apartment block next door that's superficially identical, but who won't help you when your A/C goes out in the middle of summer.

>Ms. Nguyen charges higher "rent" for her much better maintained units because part of that "rent" is actually her justly compensated wages for her labor in managing them, as well as interest from returns on the capital she's invested in their ongoing improvement and maintenance. She also collects a good bit of true Georgian rent because she is, after all, a landlord.

>Mr. Slumlord puts in as little work as he can get away with and invests as little capital into maintenance as will keep the state off his back. His return is almost entirely rent. And the only reason he can charge rent in the first place is because of the valuable location – value the community produced, not him.

>And that's the real injustice of land rent – the community produces the value, but the landlord charges rent to access it.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr...

Re: Tax the Land

#36
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that were the case, why would someone else not bid $1 more to buy that house and rent it out? Then someone else would logically be willing to bid $1 more than that, until there was no easy profit left… I think the answer is that much of the landlord’s initial profit is more or less income from working a job (buying, insuring, readying, showing, screening, fixing, collecting, etc) as evidenced by the share that a p…

> If that were the case, why has someone else not bid $1 more to buy that house and rent it out? Because capital is privatised and scarce, therefore a working-class family wishing to buy a home to live on cannot do so since they're outbid by those with capital. This leaves them with two choices: (1) pay rent to a middleman with capital, who buys the house, or (2) beg a private entity for a capital advance to be repai…

The question is “if Blackrock can buy and turn an immediate profit, why didn’t MAA, Starwood, AvalonBay, or one of 100 others not bid it up from the easy-money, too-cheap level?”

Re: Tax the Land

#37
post #29
post #7

There is something deeply wrong with the fact that you can buy-to-rent a property and immediately turn up a profit, essentially inserting yourself as a parasitic middleman in the process, providing no service, and extracting an economic rent.

> providing no service Landlords are not parasites and provide a valuable service. I think a land tax would be great to curb speculation. Buying property, not providing any service (neither by renting nor capital investment in improvements), and just pocketing the appreciation, I agree, that's parasitic on the community. FWIW - I don't think a landtax would create a meaningful tilt towards more affordable home owners…

Oh but it is the case, for instance buy-to-let loans are a big thing in the UK from a few years back till now.

Re: Tax the Land

#38

This would be a great way to destroy (privately held) farms and significantly, permanently raise food prices.

While incentivizing denser factory farms over free range. Similarly, it incentivizes higher-yield GMOs over organic/local. I’ve been seeing a lot of this pro-density stuff pop up and it seems like urbanites trying to solve for urban problems on a national level despite that much of the nation doesn’t have urban problems. See also the various anti-car/everyone-should-bike-everywhere debates.

Re: Tax the Land

#39
post #9

Not really stated in the article are three caveats: 1) Zoning laws have to change as well to actually allow development of the land being taxed toward more productive ends. 2) The land tax amount needs to be high enough that the pain of the tax effectively forces owners to improve what's on the land. A homeowner sitting on a million dollar piece of property in California taxed at ~1% is still unlikely to build an apa…

That’s insane.

California needs a constitutional convention that gets rid of the stupid proposition law. Every random suburban town has a market worse than Manhattan because there is a fundamentally inequitable tax system.

Re: Tax the Land

#40

Wait! We voted for more taxes on land owners not renters, why are the rents going up!?! Vox is a dumpster fire and the owners have been hyperbolic rage bait farmers for over a decade.

You need to read books on LVT and Georgism, it's been around for going on 150 years with praise from such diverse figures as Einstein or Tolstoy. Hardly invented by Vox, but judging from your tone you have pre-existing qualms about this particular news outlet.
Post reply on HN