Related recent discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37908268
The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land
121–130 of 164 posts
Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
It's rare that demand is so high to live so close to such big tree farms, no? The value of that land is likely lower than you are picturing, and thus the tax as well. That said, implementations of LVT vary. Some have lower rates or exemptions for ag.
Depends on the area, i imagine. In Washington, literally 100% of the lots i looked at were within a mile of hundred+ acres of tree land. A few big companies own a _ton_ of land in WA.
Also, i'm picturing the value of the land literally by what i'm trying to buy it as. Not sure how much more accurate it can get than that (at least, it's as practical as it can get. Since it's literally the sell price). These are pretty rural, fwiw. 5-10 acres, ranging from 150-250k. Heavily depends on distance to towns, interstates, etc.
Fun fact, a couple of the companies that own these lands i refer to also have a few (very limited) special gated communities. Lots that are ~20 acres, with a ton of HOA-like (CCRs) restrictions on preserving the trees. It looks a lot like living _in_ a park. Trails everywhere, etc. I was really close to getting one of those, but wetlands make a lot of purchases difficult here in WA.
Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Capitalist societies across the world are in complete demographic collapse because young people can’t afford homes to raise families, and yet progressive land taxation remains an unpopular idea. Absurd.
I find it absurd that the government can come take the house of a 70-year-old whose retired and cant keep up with the property tax skyrocketing around them. I find it absurd that rich people can move to an area they like and displace all the families that have been there generations by virtue of property tax increases effectively conquering the land. I find it absurd that the government can take your home AT ALL afte…
> I find it absurd that the government can take your home AT ALL after you have spent your whole life paying for it.
They can, but IIRC the Supreme Court just ruled that they have to give you the proceeds from the sale minus whatever lien value they had on the property.
Not that I necessarily disagree with your sentiment, but the situation isn't quite as dire as the statement makes it appear to be.
Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 o…
Also anyone who rents, which is most people at some point but especially students, immigrants (even richer ones), new grads, divorcees, basically anyone who can't dedicate a minimum of 5 years to an area.
I've been a victim to people thinking like that - which is why I'm currently paying £1600/month for a 500sqft 1-bed flat, shared with my girlfriend.
Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land
#125Especially 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 rela…
Is land tax really more propaganda resistent? There are justified concerns that it does disproportionally affect the less well off. And OTOH things like taxing wealth and capital gains are wildly popular.
Isn't class conflict a direct and inevitable result of private ownership of capital? What kind of arrangement makes companies pay more for labor than they have to?
Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it absurd that the government can come take the house of a 70-year-old whose retired and cant keep up with the property tax skyrocketing around them. I find it absurd that rich people can move to an area they like and displace all the families that have been there generations by virtue of property tax increases effectively conquering the land. I find it absurd that the government can take your home AT ALL afte…
> I find it absurd that the government can take your home AT ALL after you have spent your whole life paying for it. They can, but IIRC the Supreme Court just ruled that they have to give you the proceeds from the sale minus whatever lien value they had on the property. Not that I necessarily disagree with your sentiment, but the situation isn't quite as dire as the statement makes it appear to be.
They take your shelter that you spent a lifetime working towards?
Not much more dire than that.
Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 o…
Also anyone who rents, which is most people at some point but especially students, immigrants (even richer ones), new grads, divorcees, basically anyone who can't dedicate a minimum of 5 years to an area. I've been a victim to people thinking like that - which is why I'm currently paying £1600/month for a 500sqft 1-bed flat, shared with my girlfriend.
Well if your proposed scenario as more houses transition to single family homes...renter supply will decrease.
But also as more people transition to single family homes renter demand will decrease as well.
It equals out except instead of private equity firm owning all the houses, normal people will.
Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
If you're really dead set on the land never being developed, you could always donate it to the government with the proviso that it remain parkland, or donate it to a non-profit land trust.
You could even add a life tenancy for yourself to the deal -- you'd probably get out of paying any taxes at all.
Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land
#129Especially 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…
I don't buy either the premise or the conclusion of your last paragraph. If I own a sewing machine that I use to do piece work, that doesn't make my sewing machine rent-seeking. It makes it a tool that I use to do work.
But yes, expand this to IP. Tax Microsoft and Disney for the full value of their copyrights. If they don't want to pay the tax, they can let the copyright lapse early. Tax google for the full value of google.com. And so on.
Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 rela…
Is land tax really more propaganda resistent? There are justified concerns that it does disproportionally affect the less well off. And OTOH things like taxing wealth and capital gains are wildly popular. Isn't class conflict a direct and inevitable result of private ownership of capital? What kind of arrangement makes companies pay more for labor than they have to?
> Is land tax really more propaganda resistent?
Yes. Capital interests have spent the last 50 years laying minefields around the concepts of socialism. "Socialism is when more taxes," "socialism is when unions stop your employer from paying you more than your lazy coworker," "socialism is when you own nothing (as in property, not just assets)." Focusing on small, concrete reforms allow you to navigate around the mines.
> Isn't class conflict a direct and inevitable result of private ownership of capital?
No, it depends on the terms of ownership. Finite terms and progressive taxation can prevent the exponential runaway that establishes and perpetuates class structures.
> What kind of arrangement makes companies pay more for labor than they have to?
Policy that makes labor less desperate and therefore have higher bargaining power. There are many levers to pull.