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

The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 164 posts

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#101

Post by xboxnolifes »

strangesmells06 wrote: post #95
dukeyukey wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The indirect effect of that is subsidising (richer) homeowners at the expense of (poorer) renters. I really don't think that's a good thing.

I dont follow. Taxes would still happen on renter investment property. Just not someones personal home. So no subsiding at all.

Smaller, less expensive homes would have less tax avoided than larger, more expensive homes.

1000sqft or 10,000sqft, small rural home or prime real estate, both zero tax. There's no incentive to improve land use.

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#102

Post by tzs »

zozbot234 wrote: post #79
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re non-distorionary: It distorts along a completely new axis - whether or not economic activity uses land. It's unclear (at least to me) why Google, say, whose business activity is very non-land-intensive, should be in a favorable tax position compared to, say, farming. You say "because the farmers use more land!" And it's true; they do. But if you don't already believe that land should be the determinant of tax, tha…

> It distorts along a completely new axis - whether or not economic activity uses land. It actually doesn't, because if you hold unused land it's already fully rational for you to sell or lease it, so that some other activity can take place on it instead - any land that's taxed by LVT must by definition have some economic value. LVT may discourage pointless speculation in land values, but that's a benefit and far fro…

The difference is opportunity costs versus real costs.

Say I've got a few acres of forest that I want to keep as forest for carbon capture and as a place for birds to rest during the annual migration, and say there are logging, mining, and oil companies that want to log, mine, or drill on that land.

Under the present system keeping it as a forest doesn't make my position worse. It just means I don't reap the profits that I could reap by selling or leasing. Its an opportunity cost, not a real cost.

Under LVT my taxes go up because of those valuable potential uses. That's a real cost to me for keeping the forest.

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#103

Post by yeos_ »

tzs wrote: post #100
303uru wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, the LVT is not designed to be a wealth tax, but rather a tax on the unimproved value of land. Its primary purpose is to encourage efficient use of land and discourage speculative land holding, which can lead to artificial scarcity and inflated property prices. If the wealthy do decide to hold their wealth in other forms, this could potentially free up land for more productive uses or for those who might not hav…

> Its primary purpose is to encourage efficient use of land "Efficient" by one specific measure--how much money you can make from the land. But who says that's the best measure to guide land use?

Land ownership currently also encourages making the most money from the land, but an LVT makes speculative holding more expensive encouraging landowners and developers to actually utilize the land effectively in urban spaces.

What do you propose is the best measure to guide land use and what policies can be put in place to align those principles?

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#104

Post by jkmcf »

In the spirit of private property[1], no tax on primary residence (i.e., must actually live there most[2] of the time). No one should lose their only residence because they cannot afford to pay the tax.

1. which I only sorta agree with depending on the context

2. 75%? To be figured out by someone more informed than I, and not declarable.

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#105

Post by robertlagrant »

jeezfrk wrote: post #86
robertlagrant wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just some possibly ill-thought out comments: > Unlike income or consumption taxes, an LVT is non-distortionary. It doesn't discourage productive activities like work, saving, or investment It's not great for anyone who chose to invest in land based on the current rules, and then the rules change. > Many landowners hold onto vacant or underutilized land as a speculative investment, waiting for its value to increase Th…

a symptom of rent-seeking? speculation... wasteful monopolization and other rotten externalities ARE the problem. and since when are prices of land decreasing suddenly a terrible thing?

Due to the way you phrase your comments, I'm struggling to pull any neutral points out to respond to. Maybe this one:

> and since when are prices of land decreasing suddenly a terrible thing?

Because if it decreases, then it will discourage people from selling. You think it will increase selling (and for some reason think that's good); I'm saying that this might counteract that.

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#106

Post by dirtyhippiefree »

voisin wrote: post #98
robertlagrant wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it'd still be taxed.

Is there somewhere where land isn’t taxed? I am in Canada and all privately held land is taxed.

Land taxes in the US pay for services like fire and other emergency responders.

The discussion is about shifting more of the burden on those profiting so greatly off the land they own.

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#107

Post by readthenotes1 »

shermantanktop wrote: post #68
belligeront wrote: post #39

Relatedly, University of Chicago has a popular survey where they ask Economists their views on policy proposals (along with their confidence in their answers), and their most recent survey was on LVT: The question: > Shifting the burden of municipal property taxes towards land and away from improvements such as buildings - as proposed in the Detroit land value tax plan - will enhance the incentives for owners to deve…

One economist will give you an answer which may or may not be correct. A poll of economists sounds like a good source for /dev/random. In a field which has notable problems with predicting the future, adding more samples may not improve matters.

Economists are simply modern-day astrologers.

Sometimes they get it right.

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#108

Post by robertlagrant »

artimaeis wrote: post #76
robertlagrant wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Understood, although not much of a disincentive. I think I have an aversion to just taxing what people own. When it's a building, at least that is related to services they're likely to consume; it's not just "we want a cut".

I think that's the jib though - in a lot of countries you don't really "own" the land. You and the government(s) get to just agree that it's your responsibility for a while. LVT cleans up this incentive some by putting taxes in place in areas where the land is more valuable. I think Georgists would argue for doing that _and_ removing property taxes, specifically so you aren't taxed for the things you own.

But... you are being taxed for things you own.

I'd prefer to have more direct spending on services than we have, so the money isn't proxied off a building, or how many windows you have, or whatever harebrained scheme local bureacrats might invent. So you just pay X a month to have trash taken; X for sewage, etc etc. But I'd say that moving to just taking money in a way entirely unrelated to service consumption is going in the wrong direction.

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#109

Post by dukeyukey »

strangesmells06 wrote: post #95
dukeyukey wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The indirect effect of that is subsidising (richer) homeowners at the expense of (poorer) renters. I really don't think that's a good thing.

I dont follow. Taxes would still happen on renter investment property. Just not someones personal home. So no subsiding at all.

> Taxes would still happen on renter investment property.

Exactly. It makes renter investment property more expensive to maintain, hence making rental properties a less desirable asset, reducing the numbers built and increasing the cost of renting.

Whereas a homeowner doesn't pay that tax at all, meaning the entire residential property burden is put onto renter.

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#110

Post by dukeyukey »

dfxm12 wrote: post #70
dukeyukey wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the land is only really useful for farming or logging, then no. You'll still get taxed on it, but because the land is relatively low-value it won't be much. Now, if you're a farmer on the edge of Austin, and the city's growth means your land is getting increasingly valuable due to high housing demand, then your tax will go up, potentially until you're forced to give up farming and sell to developers. That's intent…

I think it's worth pointing out that if there's an LVT, whether you own a farm, a parking lot or an empty lot on the edge of Austin, your taxes would go up in any case. There's nothing inherent in an LVT that unfairly penalizes farms.

I'm guessing OP mean it in that a farm needs a lot of land to be viable.
Post reply on HN