Why a land-value tax is inevitable • Hacker News Board

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#121

Post by mullingitover » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 10:00 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #79

CyberDildonics wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you basing your predictions here on? Do you have an example where this has happened?

Do you have an example of where LVT was tried at scale anywhere at all ever? I'm just describing the incentives. Identify the flaw in the logic.

> Do you have an example of where LVT was tried at scale anywhere at all ever?

Pennsylvania[1].

> The number of vacant structures in Harrisburg declined from over 4200 in 1982 to under 500 by 2001. The downtown—previously a ghost town—is alive, even at night. The number of businesses on the tax roll has grown from 1,908 to 8,864.

> After LVT was adopted by voters in 1996, 70% of residential parcels saw a tax decrease; importantly, in the most at-risk neighborhoods (older pre-war housing and factory blocks) upwards of 90% of homes had their tax liability reduced. Local business taxes were frozen by law at 1996 levels. Construction returned to the city: the number of taxable building permits surged past neighboring Bethlehem, market investment returned, and capital improvement reappeared in city budgets. Tax burdens on productive work and business declined. The losers in this trade were absentee owners of vacant lots, who had to shoulder much more of the burden.

[1] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/3/6/non-glamorous-g...

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#122

Post by throwaway201103 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 10:01 PM UTC

CyberDildonics wrote: post #90

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have an example of where LVT was tried at scale anywhere at all ever? I'm just describing the incentives. Identify the flaw in the logic.

I'm not arguing for or against anything and I didn't write an elaborate prediction, I'm just asking what you are basing your predictions on.

The fundamental problem is that the value of land is inexorably tied up in the things people do with the land to actually earn money. Vacant land has little value in that sense until it's improved. You can't separate the land value from the investment in the improvements made that actually generate income. It's not quite that simple because a vacant lot in a trendy area has more potential value than a lot in a run-down area. But only because of the improvements on other nearby properties. That's what makes the land valuable -- not anything intrinsic about the land itself.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#123

Post by adwf » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 10:02 PM UTC

ichbinwiederda wrote: post #68

I detest property taxes. What ends up happening is that people who are on the brink of poverty keep losing their (inherited) land because the government deems it an income generating asset, even though it is not (it's either their home or some dilapidated piece of land without much actual income generation prospects). Often they also get screwed on the selling because they are under pressure and because they are not…

Indeed, the biggest problem with LVT is who exactly gets to value the land and how. It's an extraordinarily difficult issue which would require a very precise implementation.

Once you start assessing peoples property in such a wholesale fashion, you almost end up in a classic "managed economy" situation. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" failed due to the combined difficulty of assessment + corruption of the assessors. LVT is the same principle applied to land.

I think that LVT will end up as one of those ideas that is great in theory but doesn't work in practice.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#124

Post by Ericson2314 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 10:03 PM UTC

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #95

Ericson2314 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, or not nearly as much. The needs of a child are mediated by productivity, which has been wildly different throughout history. E.g. maybe we'll have practical fusion in 100 years and can support 100 billion people no problem. But the surface area of the earth is fixed. If you want 100 acres to do nothing good with, do it with a giant seastead.

That’s not my point. And you didn’t answer my question. You spoke of commons as collective inheritance. A serial breeder..say..someone who has a couple of children with different women more selfish than someone who has 1-2 children. The commons will be saturated by the needs of genes of prolific breeders who use women’s bodies as vessels. Is that selfish? Since we are talking about selfishness and commons as a collec…

I really don't care about individual-morality questions that do not show up in the aggregate. These are perhaps good philosophical problems to ponder, but the legacy of liberalism is such that we think that they imply questions to how society should be run. Nope, they don't.

These serial breeders do not show up in the aggregate in any country I've every been too. If you are worried about population rates in dirt poor countries, the per-capita consumption is so much lower you shouldn't bother.

> The commons will be saturated by the needs of genes of prolific breeders who use women’s bodies as vessels.

Do you have evidence to think this numerically insignificant behavior is so genetically hereditary we should worry about it?

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#125

Post by throwaway201103 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 10:04 PM UTC

foobarian wrote: post #42

seanalltogether wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, if a town with 1000 households are interspersed with 100 farms, those 100 farms should not be paying an equal amount of money to the town finances as the 1000 households. It just doesn't make sense. They should certainly be paying for the right to have exclusive access to that land, but those 100 farmers do not put as much of a financial strain on the town budget as those 1000 households

They do - if there could be 5000 more households on the land occupied by the farmers, and paying that much more tax revenue to the town, that could be viewed as a financial strain.

It's unlikely that there is pent-up demand for 5000 more households in a rural farm area. Farm land just sits there. It doesn't "cost" the local town/county anything.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#126

Post by lupinglade » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 10:06 PM UTC

bhawks wrote: post #115

Ericson2314 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern Monetary theory is theory not policy. The jobs guarantee that goes with it I really don't like. It's stupid in 2020 to not be trying to reduce the total labor per person. Sure, some infrastructure projects are really important, not profitable, and might even require the training of new labor to get it done. They should definitely still happen. But I see no good reason to hitch that to jobs guarantee.

Reducing labor as a goal seems rather odd. Why do you feel people should not have the freedom to work? What would you rather people do instead?

Live?

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#127

Post by ip26 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 10:06 PM UTC

ichbinwiederda wrote: post #68

I detest property taxes. What ends up happening is that people who are on the brink of poverty keep losing their (inherited) land because the government deems it an income generating asset, even though it is not (it's either their home or some dilapidated piece of land without much actual income generation prospects). Often they also get screwed on the selling because they are under pressure and because they are not…

Under LVT, if this house is on useless land in the middle of nowhere they wouldn't owe hardly anything. If they inherited empty land downtown they'd have to sell, but no one is well served by someone destitute hanging on to such land and doing nothing with it.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#128

Post by OldHand2018 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 10:06 PM UTC

dehrmann wrote: post #94

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are big huge businesses we aren't adequately taxing: Big tech. When your sector makes up like three of the five most valuable companies on the planet, we probably should be taxing it more. And Jeff Bezos does not need more money.

Which jurisdiction to tax large companies in, even without doing the double Irish trick, is complicated. The question was talking about state income, and taxing all of Amazon's profits in Washington doesn't really make sense. Amazon also doesn't make that much money; its profit margin is 5%; Apple's is more like 21%. It's also not like the money is never taxed. If Jeff Bezos wants to turn his AMZN shares into dollars…

> Which jurisdiction to tax large companies in, even without doing the double Irish trick, is complicated

Certainly, but many of the tricks involve licensing IP between subsidiaries in different tax regimes.

So create an IP tax. Declare the value of your IP and pay an annual tax on it. If you ever go to court to claim infringement, this is the maximum value you can claim.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#129

Post by Ericson2314 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 10:06 PM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #55

madsbuch wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

land value tax. Yes, If you decide to buy a plot in downtown San Fransisco you are taxed the same as the neighboring plot with the Salesforce tower. This is exactly the point he is making: One should put the land to good use. Move the bungalows where land is cheap and tax is low.

And generate more carbon and traffic by forcing suburban lifestyles?

Why would I live in my bumfuck FOMO bungalo when there is enough housing in the dense city proper to house everyone I know? (or dense small town proper with good rail to other towns and cities.)

Clearly I will just rent vacation bungalos when I actually have a need to be near nature.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#130

Post by dang » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 10:07 PM UTC

mullingitover wrote: post #92

DeonPenny wrote: post #45

This makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims. Like the bond market is saturated that seems the opposite of true. This also claims theres been a high inflation but that doesn't seem to be true either based on any metric. I think the one thing is clear and I agree with is taxes increases capital outflow. But my biggest issue is with the central premise that is taken at face value. That the government needs more money. I…

> Instead of taking from some to give to other incentive opportunities so those who have will willingly give opportunities to those who don't What does this even mean? This is not a sentence :)

It's great to ask what someone means but please don't do it in a nasty way, such as by cross-examining them. That costs more than it benefits.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html