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

NIMBYs in the twenty-first century

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 62 posts

Re: NIMBYs in the twenty-first century

#41

Post by icebraining »

michaelochurch wrote: post #27

The weak point of democracy is the phenomenon of cheap votes . On any high stakes issue, there are still a large number of people who don't give a damn and will sell their vote for $25 if they legally can. This undermines the democratic process, as power accrues to those who bundle cheap votes together and deploy or sell the packages. This leads to a "democracy" (or, in Silicon Valley corporate-speak, a meritocracy)…

Why bring new terminology to replace "concentrated benefits and dispersed costs", which is well established?

Re: NIMBYs in the twenty-first century

#42

Post by JoshTriplett »

nwah1 wrote: post #37
JoshTriplett wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yet, claiming ownership over any part of the surface of this ball of space rock is arbitrary, and no principle of justice can truly legitimize it. One very easy principle can: the value of land goes down dramatically if you can't kick other people off of it. Exclusive use is critically important. Unless you'd like other people traipsing through your house.

Exclusive use is important, but who gets it is currently arbitrary. To make it non-arbitrary, the titleholder should pay rent for the privilege. http://libertythinkers.com/education/a-landlord-is-a-governm...

Philosophical justifications for land use rights are highly debatable and contentious, even among those who nominally consider themselves part of the same political label. Let's not go there. It suffices to recognize that whoever controls a given bit of land needs exclusive use of it; non-exclusive use is insufficient for many practical applications of land, most notably residence.

Re: NIMBYs in the twenty-first century

#43

Post by nwah1 »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #33
nwah1 wrote: post #18

Housing is a euphemism for land. The value of locations is determined by the quality of the surrounding community and the environment. This value winds up in land because it is claimed for exclusive use by individuals, enforced by government. Yet, claiming ownership over any part of the surface of this ball of space rock is arbitrary, and no principle of justice can truly legitimize it. Instead of Piketty's blunt "we…

This sounds like Henry George, a guy I never heard about in school, but had some quite interesting ideas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism ... in short capitalism for work, but collective use of land to recognize its unique ability in compounding inequity.

Good spot. One small nitpick.

Georgists would contend that they do not support collectivized land, but rather support "common" rights to land.

http://geolib.com/sullivan.dan/commonrights.html

Re: NIMBYs in the twenty-first century

#44

Post by enraged_camel »

psaintla wrote: post #11
pcarolan wrote: post #3

Conventional wisdom says that homes are bad investments compared to equities, conventional wisdom looks to be wrong. Maybe loading up your 401k instead of buying a home isn't such a good idea. The right answer is probably to rebalance a bit towards property.

Yes, which is always why I always cringe when I see how many people in their 20s and 30s believe that home ownership is a bad idea. The willingness to rent for life in order to live a high density, urban lifestyle is going to come back to haunt them when they get older. It's good for me as a landlord but I hope people my age start rethinking their position on home ownership.

I don't rent for the urban lifestyle. I rent because it gives me tremendous flexibility when it comes to where to work. If I bought a house somewhere, I would be stuck in that place for close to ten years. Sure I could do remote work, but that is still not as common-place as regular in-office work, so I would be shooting myself in the foot in terms of job prospects and therefore earning potential.

Home ownership was a no-brainer back when people got a job out of high school or college and worked at that job for decades, got regular raises, then retired with a pension. Nowadays though? Job hopping is the only reliable way of increasing one's income, and "right to work" is very common which means you can lose your job one day just because someone decided they no longer want you.

Not to mention the economic downturns. What did we see during the most recent recession? People lost their jobs first, then they lost their houses because they couldn't pay mortgage anymore. Barely six years have passed and yet people are already losing their minds again about home ownership.

Does home ownership have its advantages? Absolutely. Is it the right choice for everyone? Hell no.

Re: NIMBYs in the twenty-first century

#45

Post by icebraining »

nwah1 wrote: post #32
jerf wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just accounting. In the end, the renter either effectively pays the tax or the property becomes unavailable for renting, because the rental income either covers the taxes and other expenses or it doesn't. This is important to understand because "well let's just raise taxes on rental properties" can sound really emotionally appealing to stick it to those nasty landlords, but the landlords aren't the ones who en…

According to David Ricardo's Law of Rent, a tax on land cannot be passed on to renters, because landlords are locational monopolists who are already charging as much as the market will bear. "A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground."…

David Ricardo didn't live to see cars and two hour commutes.

Re: NIMBYs in the twenty-first century

#46

Post by Symmetry »

ForHackernews wrote: post #21
matwood wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who isn't paying taxes on their land value? Maybe there are some states that do not, but every year I pay a pretty large tax bill based on the value of my land/house.

Arguably, we should be taxing based on the value of only the land itself, and not considering improvements (buildings, etc.) made to the land, in order to not (mildly) disincentivize making improvements to land one owns.

The problem is that a large fraction of our land value is in cities and most of them have zoning restrictions that don't match classic notions of owning land. It's easy for otherwise identical pieces of land in the same neighborhood to differ in price by a factor of ten depending on whether it comes with the right to build a house on it. Well, I suppose that means that the land tax just has to incorporate different gradients of "owning" land but that's probably still simpler than trying to determine the value of improvements.

Re: NIMBYs in the twenty-first century

#47

Post by nwah1 »

icebraining wrote: post #45
nwah1 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to David Ricardo's Law of Rent, a tax on land cannot be passed on to renters, because landlords are locational monopolists who are already charging as much as the market will bear. "A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground."…

David Ricardo didn't live to see cars and two hour commutes.

Are these not factored into what the market will bear? Do areas with shorter commutes have different land values than areas with longer commutes?

Re: NIMBYs in the twenty-first century

#48

Post by whomonk »

ForHackernews wrote: post #21
matwood wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who isn't paying taxes on their land value? Maybe there are some states that do not, but every year I pay a pretty large tax bill based on the value of my land/house.

Arguably, we should be taxing based on the value of only the land itself, and not considering improvements (buildings, etc.) made to the land, in order to not (mildly) disincentivize making improvements to land one owns.

The main problem is much greater than that builders are discouraged from improving because of a tax on buildings. The main reason we see slums, vacant buildings, fenced lots, parking lots, and single story buildings from 1900 next to new skyscrapers is that not taxing the annual rental value actually encourages hoarding land, since the value of land increases faster than anything else and the less an owner invests in improvements, the higher rate of return from "capital" (land) appreciation will be.

Re: NIMBYs in the twenty-first century

#49

Post by Symmetry »

ForHackernews wrote: post #23
eldavido wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economist is taking the position of the buyer (not maker) of software -- the prototypical business that buys a CRM tool to manage its customer relationships. Seen as a good that increases the productive capacity of a company or the economy more generally, it seems software very much is capital.

Do they buy a CRM tool, or do they just license the use of one? My understanding is that it's almost impossible to really "buy" and "own" commercial software, you can only acquire a license to use it.

If the license lasts any period of time then it's still capital, albeit capital that depreciates quickly.

Re: NIMBYs in the twenty-first century

#50

Post by whomonk »

Symmetry wrote: post #46
ForHackernews wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably, we should be taxing based on the value of only the land itself, and not considering improvements (buildings, etc.) made to the land, in order to not (mildly) disincentivize making improvements to land one owns.

The problem is that a large fraction of our land value is in cities and most of them have zoning restrictions that don't match classic notions of owning land. It's easy for otherwise identical pieces of land in the same neighborhood to differ in price by a factor of ten depending on whether it comes with the right to build a house on it. Well, I suppose that means that the land tax just has to incorporate different g…

You are right that assessments are based on the highest and best allowable use, but actually land assessments are the easiest part. Pennsylvanian mayors are on record that assessment changes (both technical and legal) almost completely evaporate from shifting from buildings to land.
Post reply on HN