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

Tax the Land

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 613 posts

Re: Tax the Land

#91

Post by trgn »

drewcoo wrote: post #82
trgn wrote: 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. And tapeworms are attractively slimming!

lol!

Point taken.

Re: Tax the Land

#92

Post by pyradius »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #83
ItsMonkk wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is only true if the tax doesn't account for improvements to the land. If you clear, level, and plant the land, it is suddenly more valuable. Alternatively, If you pay to bring an aqueduct into a desert, it is vastly more valuable.

Yes, Land Value Taxers would exempt improvements. Notably, "The Greening of the California Desert" was financed with Land Value Taxes and "A significant amendment to the Wright Act also embodies the ideas of Henry George. The revised act exempted "all trees, vines, alfalfa, growing crops and all the structures of whatever class or description," from taxation. The full cost of the irrigation systems to be built would fall on the land, not the improvements. Small farmers could take control of their destiny and bring water to their farms." https://www.henrygeorge.org/caldes.htm

Re: Tax the Land

#93

Post by danaris »

trgn wrote: post #57
danaris wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> there is nothing inherent in the nature of being a landlord that implies offering such services. I get what you're saying, but it reads like sophistry. Yes, _technically_, a landlord, can delegate all services. In practice, there's no single "tenant" who would do anything remotely capital-intensive, like fixing a roof. They just up-and-leave. > owner-residents It's called home-ownership. It's expensive for a reason…

> Yes, _technically_, a landlord, can delegate all services. In practice, there's no single "tenant" who would do anything remotely capital-intensive, like fixing a roof.

That's missing the point.

Removing landlords from the equation removes neither the need for such services, nor the ability to provide them collectively, for the (admittedly more common) case of apartment buildings and other dense living spaces.

Thus, providing those services is not inherent to being a landlord, and making changes to our regulations, laws, or tax structure that effectively removes landlording as an economically viable option would not stop those services from being provided.

Furthermore, I'm sure pretty much everyone has heard (whether first-, second-, or third-hand) stories of landlords who do not meaningfully provide these services: apartment buildings where maintenance just doesn't happen, where the pipes leak and the roof drips and plugging something into an outlet carries a constant risk of electric shock. Landlords who only care about the inherently extractive rent they get.

Re: Tax the Land

#94

Post by giantg2 »

trgn wrote: post #48
giantg2 wrote: post #13

"The big question land value taxes help answer is: How can a government raise funds without distorting choices and possibly leaving people worse off? If you tax income, it provides a disincentive to work. If you tax property, it provides a disincentive to improve the physical buildings on top of the land." Of course it will distort choices and leave some people worse off. If the author can't see that, then they have…

>If I have .75 acres with a single family home and 30 years later the area around me is developed I think this is exactly the framework. The idea is that that person right now is benefitting from increased community wealth (which would be realized in actual moneys upon sale of their property), and hence, should be taxed more. Maybe there are some sophisticated ways to strike a balance, to avoid the situation you are…

"(which would be realized in actual moneys upon sale of their property), and hence, should be taxed more."

If it were taxed only when realized, that would make sense.

"It's the poor use of land right now that I believe is the main driver of poor affordability of housing."

It's the preference of a large number of people to live in a small area. You could fix this by capping the number of jobs so that increases in population would be forced to distribute more evenly through the country. This would also address issues like retrofitting existing infrastructure. Otherwise, prices/salaries will increase to make the scheme moot for the upper working class. That's basically how the mess got here in the first place, otherwise competition and property tax would have made a dent. It's all futile if you have FAANG paying absurd money with the capability and will to pay even more.

Re: Tax the Land

#95

Post by s1artibartfast »

giantg2 wrote: post #90
aperson_hello wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting that 0.75 acres to turn over is exactly the point. Incentivizing them to leave (or better yet: subdivide and sell the land) is good for society. This policy only makes sense where zoning is also loosened enough to actually build on the land though...if zoning doesn't allow you to do anything with the land to make more money (building apartments, subdividing, etc.), this just becomes a tax on poor landowners.

"Getting that 0.75 acres to turn over is exactly the point. Incentivizing them to leave (or better yet: subdivide and sell the land) is good for society." I doubt the affected person feels it's good. Quite frankly, the land value tax ideas seem absurd to me. It's just another redistribution scheme - work hard, retire, get forced off your land via tax. It seems it's the government's and everyone else's desire to just…

It's not solely a redistribution scheme. It's based on the fundamental principle that the government is the ultimate owner of all land, and private individuals are simply renters. If you accept this to be true and good, then it makes perfect sense. If you are the type that wants to be non dependent on the government, it is deeply grating.

Re: Tax the Land

#96

Post by s1artibartfast »

long_time_gone wrote: post #78
bombcar wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This isn’t really a source though, it’s requiring the other commenter to prove the point you made. Anecdotally, I know people who buy single family homes and rent them for profit. My 3 bed, 2 bath single-family home has a $3,000/monthly mortgage, I could easily rent it for more than $3,500 (closer to $4,000). Take out 10% for maintenance fees, and I net $200 a month.

How many years would it take to recoup your down payment if the home value doesn't change?

If you pocket 500 per month, you are looking at around 35 years to break even on a $200k down payment.

You will never break even when take into account opportunity cost compared to a low appreciation bond or stock.

Re: Tax the Land

#97

Post by andrepd »

Ekaros wrote: post #74
andrepd wrote: 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.

Is it deeply wrong that you can go on stock market and buy part of company and immediately turn up profit when they pay dividends. Essentially inserting yourself as parasitic middleman in the process, providing no service and extracting an economic rent... Or doing same by buying existing debt?

Yes. I'm actually also against tradeable joint-stock corporations, admittedly a quite radical position, but one I share with people such as Adam Smith ;)

Re: Tax the Land

#98

Post by trgn »

giantg2 wrote: post #94
trgn wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If I have .75 acres with a single family home and 30 years later the area around me is developed I think this is exactly the framework. The idea is that that person right now is benefitting from increased community wealth (which would be realized in actual moneys upon sale of their property), and hence, should be taxed more. Maybe there are some sophisticated ways to strike a balance, to avoid the situation you are…

"(which would be realized in actual moneys upon sale of their property), and hence, should be taxed more." If it were taxed only when realized, that would make sense. "It's the poor use of land right now that I believe is the main driver of poor affordability of housing." It's the preference of a large number of people to live in a small area. You could fix this by capping the number of jobs so that increases in popu…

> If it were taxed only when realized, that would make sense.

The tax man does not like this. They like wealthy people to always pay something, each year. Hence, property taxes, so it can siphon off something at least. Also, why we have the alternative minimum tax schedule to prevent stock compensation to be used as a means to avoid taxes.

The little old lady _is_ wealthy, a speculator effectively. She owns a valuable asset, the land her home sits on. The fact that she moved there 30 years ago, in your scenario, gives her an inherent claim to that asset. It's because of that same view we basically have Prop 13.

Land value tax is a radical statement, in that people should not be able to profit from the value created by the community, of speculation basically.

Your scenario highlights nicely how that causes friction with some of our innate sense of right and wrong. Deferring taxes to sale, may be a way to address this, but if history is a guide, it will instead create avenues for tax dodging.

Re: Tax the Land

#99

Post by s1artibartfast »

pyradius wrote: post #92
s1artibartfast wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is only true if the tax doesn't account for improvements to the land. If you clear, level, and plant the land, it is suddenly more valuable. Alternatively, If you pay to bring an aqueduct into a desert, it is vastly more valuable.

Yes, Land Value Taxers would exempt improvements. Notably, "The Greening of the California Desert" was financed with Land Value Taxes and "A significant amendment to the Wright Act also embodies the ideas of Henry George. The revised act exempted "all trees, vines, alfalfa, growing crops and all the structures of whatever class or description," from taxation. The full cost of the irrigation systems to be built would…

Some Land value taxers would exempt improvements. however, in practice, it is very difficult separate the hypothetical pre-improvement value from market value.

Imagine trying to asses the value of a modern farm today for the hypothetical where a connecting aqueduct had not been built 70 years ago.

Exempting improvements also undermines the argument that LVT puts the land to it's best possible use.

When you improve land, the best possible use is now different. ostensibly, that's why you improved it in the first place.

Re: Tax the Land

#100

Post by silicon2401 »

danaris wrote: post #71
silicon2401 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Landlords take property that could be owned outright by the resident Why do you assume every resident wants to own their property? When I lived in Baltimore you can be damn sure I didn't want to own anything in that city. There are valid reasons for renting to exist, landlords do provide valuable services, and there are people who do want landlords and renting to exist. It's okay to say you personally don't like la…

> Why do you assume every resident wants to own their property? Actually, I don't. I know that there are people who would prefer not to. But because of the way the system is set up, it is so trivial and common for landlords to be extremely abusive. I would rather see things changed so that some people who would prefer to rent have to shrug and buy something instead—but actually have that option, because what would ha…

> I would rather see things changed so that some people who would prefer to rent have to shrug and buy something instead

This would make things even worse. Imagine having to go through the whole house buying process every time you want to move. What are young people or poor supposed to do, live with their parents until they can hopefully afford a house? What if someone just can't afford a house?

Post reply on HN