Live data from Hacker News

Tax the Land

vox.com

61–70 of 613 posts

Re: Tax the Land

#61

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

Land taxers believe in the removal of income and property taxes.

Since farm land is (pardon the pun) dirt cheap, the tax money that they would have to pay for that land would be low. So long as the farm is in rural territory, the average farmer would have lower taxes than currently.

Re: Tax the Land

#62
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I absolutely do have qualms with the entire organization and find ezra klein to be a snake. The idea that a self proclaimed anarchist who spoke against the state as being an exploitative entity, promoting increased state taxes on land, is amusing until you realize the context of him living in the period of Russian aristocracy.

Anarchist thought has a long tradition of seeing certain things as "commons" which are illegitimately appropriated by private concerns. This includes things as land, air, natural resources, cultural heritage, etc.

But more importantly, the part where you speak of "state taxes" makes me think you have no idea what you're talking about, since the original idea of Henry George was to distribute the LVT in the form of a citizen's dividend, equally among every person regardless of any criteria. A prescient form of UBI if you will.

Re: Tax the Land

#63
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?”

They do, hence the unsustainable bubble affecting property prices all over the world.

Re: Tax the Land

#64
post #45
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Landlords are not parasites and provide a valuable service. Landlords take property that could be owned outright by the resident and extract, at best, a middleman's fee. Some landlords also provide access to services such as repair, cleaning, etc and combine those fees with the rent, but there is no reason those could not be equally available to owner-residents without the landlord acting as a middleman, and there…

Exactly. To put it simply, rent charged = services sendered + economic rent. This is trivially evidenced by the fact that the landlord can outsource every service he "provides" and still turn up a profit; this amount is the economic rent on capital.

Re: Tax the Land

#65
post #12
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…

The average single-family dwelling landlord is subsidizing someone; rents are usually below actual carrying costs (maintenance, etc) and most landlords would be better off selling. It’s one of the reasons banks and companies aren’t in the single family rental business. The main thing that covers for it is property appreciation - the rent is used to just offset carrying costs while you wait for the property to go up i…

I'm strongly going to need a source to back up your claim.

Re: Tax the Land

#66
I'd recommend reading "Taxation: The Lost History" for a deeper dive into why rent as public revenue is the most logical, ethical, and efficient tax base. It is book length, but worth it if you want to understand some of the deeper/intricate concepts. Some useful sections include:

Excess Burden https://www.jstor.org/stable/43817496?read-now=1&refreqid=ex...

The Incidence of Taxation https://www.jstor.org/stable/43817496?read-now=1&refreqid=ex...

Neutrality and Super-Neutrality https://www.jstor.org/stable/43817496?read-now=1&refreqid=ex...

Can Land Value Taxation Prevent Monopolistic Behavior? https://www.jstor.org/stable/43817496?read-now=1&refreqid=ex...

Capital Formation https://www.jstor.org/stable/43817496?read-now=1&refreqid=ex...

I would add that while zoning reform is something that all Georgists should get behind, land rent as public revenue is really a separate issue. It is worth doing even with the present zoning in place. Consider a scenario where society is at a technological level where the only type of development possible is a single-family home. Rent as public revenue is still the most efficient and ethical tax base for society. Land assessment is based upon the highest and best legally-permitted use. If it is -only- possible to build single-family homes, this does not diminish the case for land rent as the tax base.

Re: Tax the Land

#67
Increasing taxes is never an ideal solution. The money rarely makes it to your pet cause - and often ends up funding programs you (strongly) disagree with. Instead, maybe try to reduce the size of government, reduce regulatory overreach and disincentivize government waste so that taxes need not be so high in the first place and it becomes easier and less expensive to build more housing.

Re: Tax the Land

#68

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…

So return to medieval England? Do we burn witches too?

I didn't make perfect grades in history, but I was under the impression that medieval England was a monarchy.

Re: Tax the Land

#70
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average single-family dwelling landlord is subsidizing someone; rents are usually below actual carrying costs (maintenance, etc) and most landlords would be better off selling. It’s one of the reasons banks and companies aren’t in the single family rental business. The main thing that covers for it is property appreciation - the rent is used to just offset carrying costs while you wait for the property to go up i…

I'm strongly going to need a source to back up your claim.

Find banks or real-estate companies that invest in single family homes for the purpose of renting them.

If you can find one, you often find that they'd rather let the property sit empty than renting it.

Or just look at the cost of buying a house vs renting a similar house, account for maintenance, and see if the numbers line up.

Post reply on HN