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

True Rate of Unemployment

lisep.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 380 posts

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#331

Post by chermi »

jaredklewis wrote: post #312
ryan_lane wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a land value tax would fix rich people from parking money in real estate, it would price regular people out of real estate. I know LVT is the libertarian dream, but in practice it means only the rich can own real estate long-term, in most cities. It also means the rich can drive out the poor by driving up land values around them, to the point where the taxes are too much to afford. LVT simply wouldn't be a good sy…

I disagree with your analysis, but putting that aside, you are ignoring the fact that LVT has been applied in the real world. Denmark, Estonia, Singapore, Taiwan... Obviously disentangling effects is hard, but there is no evidence that suggests it has the deleterious effects you mention.

I thought in Singapore it was all termed leases? That the government always owns the land?

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#332

Post by chermi »

Gareth321 wrote: post #122
xbmcuser wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the true problem which most countries dont even acknowledge is low wealth and capital gains tax. Salaries are not enough because of land prices and the prices inflation it causes through out the economy. You bring down price of home land rent then price of everything else comes down. And their is a lot more economic activity as trillions of dollars are not parked in real estate for wealth generation.

Economists have been championing Georgism for more than a century and we still refuse to consider it. I would argue that unreasonably expensive land prices are the most serious economic and social issue in the West today. It's a systemic problem, from which so many other issues are caused: homelessness, poverty, suppressed economic activity, inflation, class stratification, "failure to launch," fertility rates, inequ…

I think even when renters outnumber they're still less likely to be involved in local government. Current owners have a vested interest. Only nimbys show up

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#333

Post by tharmas »

globalnode wrote: post #295
johnnyanmac wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pied-à-Terre Taxes are pretty easy taxes to implement, because usually the ones affected may not even live in the town/state to vote against it to begin with. But ultimately this only covers a very small slice of homeowners.

In australia we have housing as an investment that pays off big. The more homes you own the richer youll be. Theres not much else here that pays off that well.

Canada too. In fact all the Anglo countries.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#334

Post by chermi »

jaredklewis wrote: post #26
xbmcuser wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the true problem which most countries dont even acknowledge is low wealth and capital gains tax. Salaries are not enough because of land prices and the prices inflation it causes through out the economy. You bring down price of home land rent then price of everything else comes down. And their is a lot more economic activity as trillions of dollars are not parked in real estate for wealth generation.

A land value tax would fix rich people parking money in real estate. A wealth tax or capital gains tax would not.

Can you explain what, if any, difference there is between LVT and georgism? How do we know simply building more wouldn't lower the returns on real estate and naturally disincentive using real estate as in investment vehicle? I guess maybe federal level taxes are basically un-repealable whereas construction has a strong local component? I understand there's complicated feedback effects here. For example, buildings be effectively illegal precisely where it's needed most.

Would decoupling education funding from local taxes do anything? I'm thinking maybe it decreases the incentive to hold on to a house thus increasing effective mobility/geographic diffusion? Probably a small effect but it seems possible it could have second order effects.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#335

Post by cpburns2009 »

fakedang wrote: post #47
jaredklewis wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A land value tax would fix rich people parking money in real estate. A wealth tax or capital gains tax would not.

A wealth tax would also be beneficial in reducing wasteful stock buybacks. Without any benefits from high stock prices, boards and shareholders will be less inclined to impose those price targets on CEOs, CEOs will be less incentivised to "cheat" on quarter-based performance and the myopic share price performance view of their companies, hence will reduce stock buybacks and returning money to shareholders. That leave…

How are stock buybacks wasteful? Aren't they just an alternate, more tax effective divided?

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#336

Post by chermi »

xbmcuser wrote: post #188
jaredklewis wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A land value tax would fix rich people parking money in real estate. A wealth tax or capital gains tax would not.

No then the money would go into inflating the stock market or gold etc. And won't get back into the economy.

So instead... What? The high price right now to live near work or relocate is regressive. I don't know what proof there is that "money not going back in to the economy"* is a larger effect than increased housing affordability?

*btw, if the money went toward interest on debt, all else being equal, that is money back in to the future economy via reduced tax demand. Of course this won't actually happen and the government will spend every cent it gets and more. So maybe your opposition should be with the government and not LVT?

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#337

Post by cpburns2009 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #23
xbmcuser wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the true problem which most countries dont even acknowledge is low wealth and capital gains tax. Salaries are not enough because of land prices and the prices inflation it causes through out the economy. You bring down price of home land rent then price of everything else comes down. And their is a lot more economic activity as trillions of dollars are not parked in real estate for wealth generation.

Or you tax it. Or, more correctly, you remove the current protections that allow land to appreciate tax-free for decades. That would move capital out of land and free it for other uses. The current system was designed to put money/people into houses post WWII but has gone too far in promoting radical multi-generational wealth structures. We already assess property each year for purposes of local property taxes. Treat…

Where do you live where there isn't already property taxes?

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#338

Post by chermi »

ryan_lane wrote: post #29
jaredklewis wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A land value tax would fix rich people parking money in real estate. A wealth tax or capital gains tax would not.

If a land value tax would fix rich people from parking money in real estate, it would price regular people out of real estate. I know LVT is the libertarian dream, but in practice it means only the rich can own real estate long-term, in most cities. It also means the rich can drive out the poor by driving up land values around them, to the point where the taxes are too much to afford. LVT simply wouldn't be a good sy…

But the second order effect is that if real estate is no longer treated as an investment, then it becomes less necessary to own a house.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#339

Post by johnnyanmac »

alex43578 wrote: post #177
johnnyanmac wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They have control over both variables in that situation. A modest proposal? And sadly, some states may not in fact give them control over that situation.

If you're implying abortion (or Swift's proposal) is the only option for birth control, you're very wrong. Are there any roadblocks to condoms or contraceptives in any state in America? I'm not aware of one.

I'm implying that an existing family of 4 in the present day is a bit too late to be "in control of those variables". Unless you have a modest proposal in mind to cull the numbers. Not much point talking in "should" tense.

>Are there any roadblocks to condoms or contraceptives in any state in America?

A few states are working on restricting birth control, no worries.

Re: True Rate of Unemployment

#340

Post by bpodgursky »

ElProlactin wrote: post #324
bpodgursky wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude I said in the original post a person with $22,500 BEFORE TAX ends up with $49,000 AFTER TAX AND TRANSFERS. There is no additional income tax after receiving the negative income tax! That's the final number!

This is really so amusingly sad. A single person with no children making $22,500 before tax does not come away with $49,000 after tax and transfers. Look it up, dude. I assume you saw the CBO distribution-of-income report and didn't actually read it. The distribution-of-income figures look at HOUSEHOLD averages. So you're talking about families with children, retirees, etc. who are getting EITC, the child tax credit,…

Are you illiterate or just a bot? My original post said: a household with 2 kids and two adults.
Post reply on HN