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

131–140 of 613 posts

Re: Tax the Land

#131

Post by mistrial9 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #111
giantg2 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you accept this to be true and good oh, then it makes perfect sense." One can accept that the government owns the land while simultaneously believing that the government can abuse that power, just like a bad landlord can.

I don't disagree, But I do think the idea that the government, not individuals, is the ultimate owner of the land is a fundamental assumption of LVT. Not all people believe this.

"ultimate owner" is too broad a brush. Long and detailed debates went on for generations over this. The origin of the USA is in the right of States to determine quite a lot of the details. Federal taxation is only a hundred years old here. Texas and the mid-west are different than California which is different than Florida.

Re: Tax the Land

#132

Post by yardstick »

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…

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

If someone has their property for 30 years and decides not to sell, isn’t that a reflection of the market not sufficiently valuing their property? Everyone has their price in a free market, exorbitant as it may seem to others.

Re: Tax the Land

#133

Post by quickthrower2 »

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…

Ownership of land is damaging to those who don’t. Not owning land is a tax to be paid to those who do. There is no perfect solution but incentivising people to sell their tennis court filled country castle pad so that 1k people have somewhere to live (and knock on effect would be fewer homeless people) sounds like a balanced compromise.

Re: Tax the Land

#134

Post by uoaei »

dismalpedigree wrote: post #129
uoaei wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have an argument against redistribution that isn't "I disagree with what the public wants"?

The masses are asses. We shouldn’t just do things because the most people want it. Thats called tyranny by the majority.

I personally believe it'd be great if people like you could completely divest themselves from nation-states. You don't want to contribute to a commonwealth, that's fine, you can rough it over there and live a sad, cold, hungry existence.

The vast majority of the comforts of modern life are afforded specifically and only because other people contribute to the common cause. You reject your responsibility to contribute to same but gleefully consume the benefits which are allocated to you. What an ass.

Everyone wants to believe they'd be great survivalists. Very few appreciate the level of knowledge and skill needed to do it alone. Even fewer can ever gain all that knowledge and all those skills. There's a reason humans organize into packs: division of labor is nothing less than a paradigm shift in productivity for groups of people. Civilization today is that same basic concept scaled up to support your consumptive ass along with the rest of humanity.

Re: Tax the Land

#135

Post by Hammershaft »

andrepd wrote: post #40
boredumb wrote: post #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.

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.

Also Milton Friedman! Important qualification to recognize this is not just a leftist policy.

Re: Tax the Land

#136

Post by sfblah »

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…

Income taxes in California + US Federal are high enough that I don't really think it's worth it to try to get my income above, say, $500k a year. So, for me, income taxes absolutely disincentivize work. I actually had a second job for a while and quit it because of this.

Re: Tax the Land

#137

Post by anamax »

beebmam wrote: post #126
anamax wrote: post #122

"It's the poor use of land right now that I believe is the main driver of poor affordability of housing." The assumption that everyone who wants to live in {place} should be able to do so is interesting. It's quite likely that {place} is a good place to live because there aren't too many people who live there. If that's true, we either come up with some way to limit the number of people or we destroy {place}. As to t…

>It's quite likely that {place} is a good place to live because there aren't too many people who live there. Citation needed. Intuitively to me, it seems that {place} is a good (or bad) place to live because of a lot of reasons, not just one, as you suggest.

"because" was the wrong word as {place} isn't good just because there aren't too many people. ("not too many" is necessary, not sufficient.)

However, "{place} won't be a good place to live if there are too many people there" is intuitively obvious.

Consider Yosemite Valley. Do you really think that it would still be a good place if 1M people lived there? Okay - how about 100k? (There are easily 100k people who would love to live in YV.)

Heck - consider Disneyland. Too many people is a horrible experience.

Re: Tax the Land

#138

Post by dismalpedigree »

uoaei wrote: post #134
dismalpedigree wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The masses are asses. We shouldn’t just do things because the most people want it. Thats called tyranny by the majority.

I personally believe it'd be great if people like you could completely divest themselves from nation-states. You don't want to contribute to a commonwealth, that's fine, you can rough it over there and live a sad, cold, hungry existence. The vast majority of the comforts of modern life are afforded specifically and only because other people contribute to the common cause. You reject your responsibility to contribute…

I personally feel it’d be great if people like you could stop thinking that all property is inherently society’s property and that I should be thankful society allows me to reside on it.

We are all in it together, but we will all be better off when others stop trying to appropriate everything from me and give it to others just because they want it.

I work hard for what I have. I shouldn’t have to have it taken away if I don’t continue to work (add value) into perpetuity.

Re: Tax the Land

#139

Post by uoaei »

dismalpedigree wrote: post #129
uoaei wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have an argument against redistribution that isn't "I disagree with what the public wants"?

The masses are asses. We shouldn’t just do things because the most people want it. Thats called tyranny by the majority.

> We shouldn’t just do things because the most people want it.

I actually agree. "Should" is such a terrible word that I don't think we should use it at all. But we do do the things that most people want, because that is by construction the primary desire on a societal scale. You are part of a bigger machine, whether you like it or not.

> Thats called tyranny by the majority.

Really funny that American neo-con reactionaries have introduced such a concept. Anywhere else, it's just called "democracy".

Re: Tax the Land

#140

Post by uoaei »

dismalpedigree wrote: post #138
uoaei wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally believe it'd be great if people like you could completely divest themselves from nation-states. You don't want to contribute to a commonwealth, that's fine, you can rough it over there and live a sad, cold, hungry existence. The vast majority of the comforts of modern life are afforded specifically and only because other people contribute to the common cause. You reject your responsibility to contribute…

I personally feel it’d be great if people like you could stop thinking that all property is inherently society’s property and that I should be thankful society allows me to reside on it. We are all in it together, but we will all be better off when others stop trying to appropriate everything from me and give it to others just because they want it. I work hard for what I have. I shouldn’t have to have it taken away i…

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN