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

High property taxes are good

brooock.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 620 posts

Re: High property taxes are good

#141

Post by indecisive_user »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #68
Dracophoenix wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between the two in reality? Theoretically, with a land value tax, "improvements" (however that's defined) aren't added to the final tax calculation. However better-looking homes are then a signal that drive up demand for (and therefore price of) land so ultimately it seems LVT does punish improvements if only indirectly.

> What's the difference between the two in reality? Land value tax incentivises turning a single-family home into a multi-unit building. Property tax explicitly discourages that.

If everyone on the block turns their homes into multiplexes or high rises, this would attract businesses/restaurants to cater to the new residents which would ultimately increase the value of the land and the corresponding taxes, so I'm confused how it's different than property taxes in that regard

Re: High property taxes are good

#142

Post by salawat »

BLO716 wrote: post #103

The real estate industry is a closed looped system, and because its monopolistic, anti-free market, and dealing with a finite product that simply trades hands its golden age was done after the great expansion of the United States after the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican Treaties of 1848. This a foundational industry that pitted the upstate New Yorkers and the agrarian Virginians against Alexander Hamilton at almo…

The market didn't become more perverse because no more land. It was perverse from it's inception, you just wouldn't come across the scaling issue until such time as population seeking space outstripped finite supply of land.

Any market will run into this fundamental problem. The issue is apriori to market facillitated resource allocation systems. Whatever unit you use to represent value or as the unit of transaction; it will inevitably centralize once demand starts outstripping supply, and rent extraction becomes an effective capital amplifier.

It's the magic of power laws. Everybody without capital assets pays everyone who has it. Those with it lift the prices by virtue of the fact they too are factored into average buying power amongst the potential set of transactors. That justifies higher asks, which decreases your non-capital owning members supply of transaction medium to devote to acquiring more capital which increases your rent extractors capability to diversify, rinse, repeat.

There. Is. No. Escape. Except estate taxes, assuming no immortal legal fictions. In the presence of such, you're hosed for recreating a level playing field for latecomers.

Re: High property taxes are good

#143

Post by throwaway0a5e »

kristjansson wrote: post #135
binarymax wrote: post #102

An effective 2.5% property tax, such as the example given for Chicago, is not high. Try living in NY, where effective tax is between 3.5% and 5% (mine is 3.8 in the city of Rochester). It’s really hard for people to become homeowners at that rate, especially when the market goes up and an appraiser can show up at any time and re-assess your value and raise your taxes.

Wow, that's nearly another mortgage payment. Forever! For the privilege of living in Rochester, NY?

That's probably part of how they keep the kind of people they don't want living long term in Rochester out of Rochester.

Re: High property taxes are good

#144

Post by vanilla_nut »

chadash wrote: post #81
vanilla_nut wrote: post #2

In my region of northern New Hampshire, there are a lot of retired folks with houses rising from $200k-ish values to closer to $500k-ish values in the last 5-10 years. As such, there's a lot of discussion around lowering property taxes to help these retirees. In my opinion? Fuck 'em. Property taxes are a brilliant method of perfectly progressive taxation: you can always choose to live in a cheaper home. If your home…

> You can always choose to live in a cheaper home. So your 90 year old grandpa has been living in a two bedroom apartment on the lower east side for 65 years. When he moved in at age 25, it was considered a crummy but affordable neighborhood, but now it's expensive and desirable. You want a 90 year old to have to move? I agree that maybe a 65 year old couple no longer needs to be in a 3,000 square foot home, but ther…

Why does grandpa get to live in a two bedroom apartment in the LES during retirement when so many other people can't afford it despite working for a living?

If he owns, you'd think that he could sell the two bedroom and downgrade to a one bedroom to keep the monthly cost down. Or even a studio. But at some point it's an incredibly desirable, expensive neighborhood and I'm not sure anyone deserves the privilege to live where they want as long as they want.

Re: High property taxes are good

#145

Post by danans »

EddieDante wrote: post #108
dmfdmf wrote: post #97

Property taxes are unconstitutional and immoral. They are an implicit nationalization of all property because there is no way to own property unencumbered. Implicitly the govt owns all the land and charges you rent. The level, high or low, is irrelevant to the principle.

I'm gonna blow your mind right now: the foundation of all law is the government's monopoly on violence. Might makes right. The only "social contract" in force is, "Obey and be protected. Defy us and die."

> The only "social contract" in force is, "Obey and be protected. Defy us and die."

That same contract is also in force in the absence of a government monopoly on violence, with the difference that the "and die" part gets implemented far more frequently.

That's why anarchists (of any stripe - left or right) shouldn't be trusted, since what they are really aiming for is to destroy democratic institutions and replace them with an authoritarianism that enforces only their preferences.

Re: High property taxes are good

#146

Post by chadash »

yellowapple wrote: post #106
chadash wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can always choose to live in a cheaper home. So your 90 year old grandpa has been living in a two bedroom apartment on the lower east side for 65 years. When he moved in at age 25, it was considered a crummy but affordable neighborhood, but now it's expensive and desirable. You want a 90 year old to have to move? I agree that maybe a 65 year old couple no longer needs to be in a 3,000 square foot home, but ther…

If Grandpa rents that apartment instead of owning it, he'd if anything stand to benefit (especially if we tax land value specifically and not the building).

My point is that a lot of (and maybe most) 90 year olds are not really capable of moving. Moves are a pretty big pain in the ass in your 20s and 30s, but doing the process of finding a new apartment and physically moving are much harder at that age. And then you move to somewhere cheaper because the whole point is you can't afford the city anymore, but now you need to find all new doctors (many 90 year olds have multiple doctors they see regularly), figure out how to see family (perhaps you remained in your old place because your family lived nearby), get to the grocery store (you're 90... you likely can't drive). It's not practical.

Re: High property taxes are good

#147

Post by vanilla_nut »

fundad wrote: post #65
vanilla_nut wrote: post #2

In my region of northern New Hampshire, there are a lot of retired folks with houses rising from $200k-ish values to closer to $500k-ish values in the last 5-10 years. As such, there's a lot of discussion around lowering property taxes to help these retirees. In my opinion? Fuck 'em. Property taxes are a brilliant method of perfectly progressive taxation: you can always choose to live in a cheaper home. If your home…

I'd say Fuck the idea of making it cheaper to live forever in the exact house when you could downsize and make the home available for a family. If the area was underutilized when they bought in cheap, they earned their windfall. I hope they didn't prevent apartment buildings from being built in their area.

Thank you -- this is a more concise version of my thoughts. If your house goes up in value, you just earned likely hundreds of thousands of dollars in the resulting windfall when you sell. Why on earth should I feel bad for you? I understand that communities change when this sort of thing happens, but pushing out the retired couple living in a multi-bedroom apartment for a small family is a healthier thing for the community. You don't want to freeze communities in time, they need to grow and evolve.

Re: High property taxes are good

#148

Post by beefman »

Threads about real estate are invariably overrun by clueless 20-somethings who think 'muh zoning' will let them afford property in the [elite metropolitan neighborhood]. Statistically none of you will be able to afford a home here; my advice is to leave while the leaving's good.

Especially if you were lured here by some VC who sold you a metric ton of variance and went to the bank with the drift. But hey, they're on your side with the whole zoning thing.

When you strip away the politics and bogus economics, house pricing is just the adult version of lunch table drama. That drama is actually a microcosm -- everyone in the cafeteria was selected at the real estate level.

You may have been raised to think you could be elite, but only a small minority can be. And if you're downvoting comments because they imply you're not...

It is cruel, but changing it would require far more drastic measures than proposed here.

Re: High property taxes are good

#149

Post by naasking »

tptacek wrote: post #136
naasking wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not clear on how land value taxes would incentivize the right kinds of units. For instance, would a land value tax incentivize the creation of tiny bachelor apartments, or larger apartments that families can use? We need incentives for both, and larger units are not very common these days.

Why does tax policy need to directly influence the mix of 1bdr and 3bdr apartments? Renters who need 3bdr apartments have enormous influence over the market already.

If tax policy is not designed with these considerations in mind, then it will incentivize an improper mix and deteriorate the livability of the city. For instance, where I live the city core has been abandoned by families because no family-sized units have been built in something like 40 years. So families move out of the cities and then commute which causes all sorts of traffic problems, wastes their time in these commutes, creates more pollution and carbon emissions, and so on.

Re: High property taxes are good

#150

Post by EddieDante »

danans wrote: post #145
EddieDante wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm gonna blow your mind right now: the foundation of all law is the government's monopoly on violence. Might makes right. The only "social contract" in force is, "Obey and be protected. Defy us and die."

> The only "social contract" in force is, "Obey and be protected. Defy us and die." That same contract is also in force in the absence of a government monopoly on violence, with the difference that the "and die" part gets implemented far more frequently. That's why anarchists (of any stripe - left or right) shouldn't be trusted, since what they are really aiming for is to destroy democratic institutions and replace t…

Corollary: the difference between a government and a warlord/organized crime syndicate is the time/money/effort spent on propaganda.
Post reply on HN