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

111–120 of 164 posts

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

#111

Post by dukeyukey »

r3trohack3r wrote: post #57
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’m not sure this is the right lens. Poorer renter isn’t a static label, we need to build paths that allow the lower and middle class to build equity. The goal of these policies, IMH(umble)O, should be to help poorer renters become richer homeowners. I feel like you do that by reducing the total cost of walking that path. Not by increasing their tax obligation every step up the socio-economic ladder they climb on the…

Equally, you don't help people by taxing the poorer more than the richer. So maybe we should just tax land as land, and leave it at that? Being a renter is part of that path after all.

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

#112

Post by jjoonathan »

dfxm12 wrote: post #81
jjoonathan wrote: post #48

Has someone written up a comparison of LVT vs Rolling Leases (i.e. perpetual land ownership is replaced by 30-40 year leases)? Rolling leases just seem to have more good flexibility and less bad flexibility. By "good flexibility" I mean options to convert from perpetual ownership without screwing current owners -- our perpetual ownership model involves extremely favorable tax treatment at certain stages (capital gain…

Do you have more info explaining a "rolling lease"? I assume you're leasing the land from the state... On the face of it, what happens to/who owns the improvements on the land after the lease is up or you have to move? What happens with the lease if you have to move?

You sell the lease if you want to move. As for imprevements, we already deal with pricing and depreciating them for tax reasons. The new leaseholder would have to compensate the old leaseholder. This process will be imperfect, but the imperfections seem mundane compared to the imperfections caused by tying a financial asset to shelter and especially mundane in places where land value trumps improvement value or where depreciation schedule matches lease duration (both of which are common). We are trading big problems for small problems.

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

#113

Post by jjoonathan »

zozbot234 wrote: post #85
jjoonathan wrote: post #48

Has someone written up a comparison of LVT vs Rolling Leases (i.e. perpetual land ownership is replaced by 30-40 year leases)? Rolling leases just seem to have more good flexibility and less bad flexibility. By "good flexibility" I mean options to convert from perpetual ownership without screwing current owners -- our perpetual ownership model involves extremely favorable tax treatment at certain stages (capital gain…

The problem with rolling leases is that policymakers have a big incentive to break the leasing arrangement and sell the land outright/give it away to their corrupt cronies, because this lets them capture value for themselves that would properly belong to future generations. Leases may work if they have strong, quasi-constitutional protections though.

Right, but if we let "rich people want to be paid for being rich" stop us then we can't accomplish anything because that will never change :)

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

#114

Post by strangesmells06 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #96
throw0101a wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I personally think people's first property should be tax-free. their actual home. This is how it works in Canada: principle residence has no capital gains on sale. If you move to a new place, and don't sell the old one, then you have to change its status and the clock starts ticking on any price appreciation after the status change. Further if you rent out part of the structure (e.g., basement), then you have to pr…

It's capital gains tax free, but it's far from tax-free. Myself, I pay about $7000 a year in property taxes on mine. Eliminating those and increasing corporate/second property taxes instead would be insane. That means that renters would be responsible for most of the taxes required to maintain the streets in front of my house.

What you seem to not understand is that the government has enough money to maintain the roads with out property tax entirely. It would force the government to be more efficient with their money and shrink the governement to just the essentials.

You think any for of US government operates on a shoestring budget? They are the most bloated entities on the earth. And its based off the backs of the poor and middle class.

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

#115

Post by strangesmells06 »

dukeyukey wrote: post #109
strangesmells06 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> hence making rental properties a less desirable asset, reducing the numbers built and increasing the cost of renting.

On the flip side it would increase the number of single family homes and make them cheaper so people could afford them and stop renting.

Sounds like a huge win for single familys and huge hit to giant private equity funds buying up homes and land to turn the middle class into an eternal population of renting serfs.

It would also keep communities intact as people would never be priced out of their own home.

Net win for everyone but the private equity landlords and bloated government.

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

#116

Post by AnimalMuppet »

robertlagrant wrote: post #105
jeezfrk wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, if the price of land decreases, it only discourages people from selling if they think that the price will come back some time in the future. A permanent tax change won't make people think that.

More: If the tax rate has gone up enough that the price has gone down, then if I hold it, I'm also having to pay the higher taxes year after year. That's going to encourage selling, not discourage it.

I don't like Georgism for other reasons, but I think that part will work as advertised.

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

#117

Post by strangesmells06 »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #101
strangesmells06 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Easily solved zoning problem....theres already tons of zoning with size restrictions.

Or just make the law have size limitations to be eligible for the exemption.

Easily addressed issue. Not even worth duscussing.

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

#118

Post by strangesmells06 »

dukeyukey wrote: post #111
r3trohack3r wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure this is the right lens. Poorer renter isn’t a static label, we need to build paths that allow the lower and middle class to build equity. The goal of these policies, IMH(umble)O, should be to help poorer renters become richer homeowners. I feel like you do that by reducing the total cost of walking that path. Not by increasing their tax obligation every step up the socio-economic ladder they climb on the…

Equally, you don't help people by taxing the poorer more than the richer. So maybe we should just tax land as land, and leave it at that? Being a renter is part of that path after all.

[flagged]

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

#119

Post by jjoonathan »

jampekka wrote: post #52

Especially contemporary Georgists seem to be fixated on land tax. In the 19th century a big focus on land kinda made sense because agriculture was such a huge part of the economy. What's missed is the general idea. It's not land per se but any ownership that can be/is used for "rent seeking" (i.e. getting money without contributing any work). Nowadays things like intellectual property, natural resources and major inf…

Ehh, but ownership is important for converting savings into investments and forcing investors to make decisions with skin in the game. Let's not throw those capitalism babies out with the class-conflict bathwater.

It's better to focus one-by-one on comparatively small reforms that each close off a single avenue of rent-seeking and can each be justified on sturdy economic footing by economists with minimal direct relation to he-who-must-not-be-named. This approach is less revolutionary (we know how those go), more propaganda resistant, and generally better.

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

#120

Post by Turing_Machine »

unshavedyak wrote: post #54
303uru wrote: post #10

I'm a huge proponent of land tax. Here's why I think it's worth considering: 1. Economic Efficiency: Unlike income or consumption taxes, an LVT is non-distortionary. It doesn't discourage productive activities like work, saving, or investment. Land is a fixed resource; its supply doesn't change with price or tax fluctuations. Therefore, an LVT wouldn't distort market incentives, unlike other taxes. By shifting the ta…

As an aside, i'd be curious how this strategy would work for long term farming. Ie 40+ year tree farms, where they own thousands (millions?) of acres which sit for 40 years, harvest, and then go back to being idle. You could say that they can set the land to being a special tax code for tree farming or w/e. Which is something that already exists. I've been looking for a 10 acre plot (being picky on location, shape, e…

If I'm not mistaken, the Georgist model taxes the unimproved land value.

Your hypothetical tree farm would be taxed at the same rate as a neighboring parcel that didn't have a tree farm on it.

But you don't have to wait 40 years to realize a return on your investment if you don't want to... the sale price of the land would be going up every year, because the trees would be growing (a tree farm with 20 year old trees on it would be worth a lot more than a tree farm with 1 year old trees on it, yes?).

I myself am not fully persuaded by Georgism, but as far as I can see, there's no disincentive to things like tree farms under a Georgist model.

Post reply on HN