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

141–150 of 613 posts

Re: Tax the Land

#141

Post by giantg2 »

Hammershaft wrote: post #130
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…

> Of course it will distort choices and leave some people worse off. If the author can't see that, then they have a serious bias problem. The whole point of the land value tax is to tax land to encourage higher density and higher cost use. Under our current system we subsidize low value land uses by subsidizing the crap out of infrastructure to expansions of suburban areas zoned for single family homes. https://www.y…

"The only revenue positive portion of nearly any modern american city/town is the dense urban core."

Even then most places rely on state and federal grants to make ends meet. Do you have have any examples of cities actually net positive without outside funds?

"You are thinking in absolute terms and not on the margins."

I think my position still stands. The claim was that people would not work because income is taxed. What you describe is reduction in work incentive when you hit the next bracket. I'm saying that in order to not work you would have to value the support systems more than making any income.

And of course, most people are no where near the level income that they don't want to make more. We're pretty talking about the 1% ($600k), or maybe the top 5% ($240k). So not particularly useful for designing policy for the other 95-99%. In fact, it could be beneficial for those high earners to drop out and allow new people to take their place.

Re: Tax the Land

#142

Post by rdtwo »

powerslacker wrote: post #127
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 tax definitely disincentives work. Source: my life. In the current economic situation I could easily take on another 40/hour a week job. If I do that I only get to keep just over half of the additional pay my extra job would supply. It's not worth my time to work for half my 'hourly rate'. So now there's an extra job vacancy.

Which is normally a good thing. Because we need more people employed as opposed to one person with 2x income

Re: Tax the Land

#143

Post by throwaway0a5e »

I busted my ass over many years to make my (nominally) single family home lot into an under the radar industrial site doing industrial things.

I'd do a lot of fucked up things to prevent that from being taxed into oblivion.

Re: Tax the Land

#144

Post by giantg2 »

diebeforei485 wrote: post #121
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…

> We already see standard property tax forcing the elderly out of their homes in many areas. It's reasonable to offer options to low-income retirees, for example allowing them to defer property tax payments until death. Texas does this, it works alright. Note that a single family dewlling on .75 acres likely costs the government a lot of money to provide services (plumbing, sewer, electric etc) and is likely already…

I think that depends. Many places have private companies providing those services. The hookup costs are usually high. Then they make money on the bills too. It can be 50+ years before it needs to be replaced and another large fee charged.

Also, many places could have well and septic, so that's all private costs. Off grid solar is also being a (small) option, where allowed.

Re: Tax the Land

#145

Post by fleddr »

uoaei wrote: post #124
giantg2 wrote: post #90

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." 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…

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

Do you? Because depending on the country, the "public" are existing home owners and those wanting reform the minority.

Re: Tax the Land

#146

Post by Hammershaft »

giantg2 wrote: post #141
Hammershaft wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course it will distort choices and leave some people worse off. If the author can't see that, then they have a serious bias problem. The whole point of the land value tax is to tax land to encourage higher density and higher cost use. Under our current system we subsidize low value land uses by subsidizing the crap out of infrastructure to expansions of suburban areas zoned for single family homes. https://www.y…

"The only revenue positive portion of nearly any modern american city/town is the dense urban core." Even then most places rely on state and federal grants to make ends meet. Do you have have any examples of cities actually net positive without outside funds? "You are thinking in absolute terms and not on the margins." I think my position still stands. The claim was that people would not work because income is taxed.…

> Even then most places rely on state and federal grants to make ends meet. Do you have have any examples of cities actually net positive without outside funds?

Did you watch the video? It's short and demonstrates incredibly well through data the problems with our model of urban development.

> I think my position still stands. The claim was that people would not work because income is taxed. What you describe is reduction in work incentive when you hit the next bracket. I'm saying that in order to not work you would have to value the support systems more than making any income.

On the margins, income taxes lower the incentive to work more hours.

Re: Tax the Land

#147

Post by giantg2 »

powerslacker wrote: post #127
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 tax definitely disincentives work. Source: my life. In the current economic situation I could easily take on another 40/hour a week job. If I do that I only get to keep just over half of the additional pay my extra job would supply. It's not worth my time to work for half my 'hourly rate'. So now there's an extra job vacancy.

Is it really the tax though? It sounds like you have enough money where the utility of extra money is reduced and you would rather do other things with your time. Can you honestly say that you would work 80 hr per week even at full rate? Now let's also consider that your first 40 your job would be full rate too, also providing less incentive for more needing more money.

Re: Tax the Land

#148

Post by missedthecue »

diebeforei485 wrote: post #121
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…

> We already see standard property tax forcing the elderly out of their homes in many areas. It's reasonable to offer options to low-income retirees, for example allowing them to defer property tax payments until death. Texas does this, it works alright. Note that a single family dewlling on .75 acres likely costs the government a lot of money to provide services (plumbing, sewer, electric etc) and is likely already…

Most suburban/exurban SFH in most regions of the US have their own wells, septic, and plumbing. They're not on city water.

Re: Tax the Land

#149

Post by giantg2 »

8note wrote: post #120
s1artibartfast wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think you can avoid the government ownership of land, at least within the US. If its not the governments, it still belongs to the natives the government stole it from. The individual's legitimacy comes from the government's claims over the land

"it still belongs to the natives"

Even that could be debated. Some tribes also subscribed to the right of conquest, such as the Lakota. Not a pretty thought but just thought it was worth mentioning.

Re: Tax the Land

#150

Post by dismalpedigree »

uoaei wrote: post #140
dismalpedigree wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Quoted post unavailable.

You are honestly arguing that the concept of private property is a mistake?

Serious question. How do you envision things working when everything is communal? What motivates productivity and overcomes the tragedy of the commons?

Post reply on HN