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

Letter from a Young Distributist: Georgism and Distributism

progressandpoverty.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 165 posts

Re: Letter from a Young Distributist: Georgism and Distributism

#151

Post by skybrian »

pydry wrote: post #125
imtringued wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am always confused when the idea is that the price of land should be 0. Yes I agree it should be low but let's be pragmatic. It would be enough if the land price is a fraction of a yearly salary. Say $20000.

It doesnt really make sense from a moral or economic perspective to have it be owned it's purely about tradition and the implicit threat of violence. A tradition that arbitrarily prints free money for some and arbitrarily imbues economic burden on others. The electromagnetic spectrum is sort of like land from an economic perspective except it "appeared" only recently. Nobody owns that or puts a price on it. Everybody…

Georgism isn't different. It relies on an implicit threat of force, too, since it's all about property taxes. Not paying your property tax (which some people might not be able to afford in places where it goes up a lot) would likely have similar effects as eviction or foreclosure. Otherwise, why pay the tax?

Re: Letter from a Young Distributist: Georgism and Distributism

#152

Post by throwaway4aday »

brightly-salty wrote: post #143
throwaway4aday wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the land value I think this is the key issue that gets glossed over. Who decides the land value? How is that decision arrived at? Is it a purely bureaucratic process where the community has no say? Is it set at a federal level where it will likely be completely disconnected from the reality of a particular municipality? A lot would hinge on the answers to these questions and I'd take a bet that if this were ever im…

Common solutions include appraisal (like property taxes are today) or a Vickrey auction, where we auction off the land, and the first place bidder gets it at the price of the second bid.

Ok, but my question was for more detail on how such an appraisal would work and then what the second order effects would be. For something this big we need to think through several generations worth of downstream consequences. We already have many examples of how such revolutionary economic changes can lead to disaster and mass death when people get caught up with the spirit of the idea and don't sit down and do the hard math to work out all of the details ahead of time.

Re: Letter from a Young Distributist: Georgism and Distributism

#153

Post by anamax »

brightly-salty wrote: post #127
anamax wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Who pays" was relevant when the claim was that banks holding mortgages would pay. Let's review: "if the bank owns the land as in a mortgage, they are the ones paying the tax, not the people taking out the mortgages." You don't understand mortgages in a way that is essential to your argument. Banks holding mortgages don't own the property. At most, they own the right to grab the property if they're not paid, which is…

I will admit that I misunderstand TimPC’s point about people having to pay the land value tax in addition to the mortgage; I misunderstood mortgages in terms of who really owns the land. But the point still stands. If the land value tax is paid by the homeowner, the sales price of the land is zero (under a 100% LVT), so the mortgage rates are lowered by an equivalent amount. So there is no additional burden upon the…

> If the land value tax is paid by the homeowner, the sales price of the land is zero (under a 100% LVT)

I let that bit of bogosity slip by me.

The sales price of valuable land will never be 0.

Govt may not see the price, but it will be paid.

You've convinced me that Georgists don't have any experience with actual people or economies. They just have a theory unmoored to reality.

Re: Letter from a Young Distributist: Georgism and Distributism

#154

Post by anamax »

colinmhayes wrote: post #103
anamax wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that parking lots can easily be the best use.

If parking lots are the best use the LVT will be low enough to be negligible. If the LVT is causing the owner to not be able to afford parking lots the area needs more buildings and less parking lots, even if that's just a parking structure.

> If the LVT is causing the owner to not be able to afford parking lots the area needs more buildings and less parking lots, even if that's just a parking structure.

In what universe is "fewer parking lots" the solution to "not enough parking lots"?

As Orwell wrote, “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”

Re: Letter from a Young Distributist: Georgism and Distributism

#155

Post by anamax »

imtringued wrote: post #121
anamax wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that parking lots can easily be the best use.

Okay, let's assume land is expensive and you do need the parking lots. Georgism just tells you, please use the land more efficiently. Underground parking or a multi story garage become profitable as they reduce the amount of land being used and therefore reduces land value taxes you have to pay. Ethical tax avoidance!

You do know that you're substituting expensive parking for cheap, right?

However, you are demonstrating that Georgist "efficient land use" is not particularly desirable. (Moreover, "efficient" land use is rarely that important.)

Georgism does push towards a monoculture and a particularly horrible one at that.

For example, Georgism punishes someone who puts some open space between buildings, even though open-space is clearly a good thing.

As I wrote previous, Georgists confuse having an equation that they can "optimize" with having a useful idea on how to allocate resources in the real world.

Yes, Georgism lets you do some calculations, but that doesn't imply that doing those calculations is worthwhile. (This is a problem with economics as a field.)

And, no, the "witticisms" don't make your case. They actually argue that Georgists are dangerous fools.

Re: Letter from a Young Distributist: Georgism and Distributism

#156

Post by colinmhayes »

anamax wrote: post #154
colinmhayes wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If parking lots are the best use the LVT will be low enough to be negligible. If the LVT is causing the owner to not be able to afford parking lots the area needs more buildings and less parking lots, even if that's just a parking structure.

> If the LVT is causing the owner to not be able to afford parking lots the area needs more buildings and less parking lots, even if that's just a parking structure. In what universe is "fewer parking lots" the solution to "not enough parking lots"? As Orwell wrote, “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”

I mean tbh we just have a paradigm difference. IMO there is no such thing as not enough parking lots. They're wasteful eyesores that encourage a horrible externality.

Re: Letter from a Young Distributist: Georgism and Distributism

#157

Post by ericd »

TimPC wrote: post #137
ericd wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How old is your community? Because road expenses are relatively low when they're new, but many communities aren't being fiscally responsible enough to budget appropriately for road maintenance.

Markham incorporated as a town in 1971. Before that it was mostly farmland. Still over 50 years old is long enough to face road maintenance costs.

Yeah, should be, if it was pretty fully built out as of 50 years ago.

Re: Letter from a Young Distributist: Georgism and Distributism

#158

Post by brightly-salty »

anamax wrote: post #153
brightly-salty wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will admit that I misunderstand TimPC’s point about people having to pay the land value tax in addition to the mortgage; I misunderstood mortgages in terms of who really owns the land. But the point still stands. If the land value tax is paid by the homeowner, the sales price of the land is zero (under a 100% LVT), so the mortgage rates are lowered by an equivalent amount. So there is no additional burden upon the…

> If the land value tax is paid by the homeowner, the sales price of the land is zero (under a 100% LVT) I let that bit of bogosity slip by me. The sales price of valuable land will never be 0. Govt may not see the price, but it will be paid. You've convinced me that Georgists don't have any experience with actual people or economies. They just have a theory unmoored to reality.

How much would you pay for land that has 100% of its rental value taxed away every year?

Re: Letter from a Young Distributist: Georgism and Distributism

#159

Post by anamax »

brightly-salty wrote: post #158
anamax wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the land value tax is paid by the homeowner, the sales price of the land is zero (under a 100% LVT) I let that bit of bogosity slip by me. The sales price of valuable land will never be 0. Govt may not see the price, but it will be paid. You've convinced me that Georgists don't have any experience with actual people or economies. They just have a theory unmoored to reality.

How much would you pay for land that has 100% of its rental value taxed away every year?

Word games aside, I'd pay for land if I'd make money by doing so.

Suppose that I own a building. I may, or may not, pay for the land it sits on.

In the "land value is taxed 100%" regime, it doesn't make sense for land owners to charge rent because govt takes the "land rent".

%100% of 0 is 0.

I'm pretty sure that they'll figure out some way to get compensated. If they can't, no one will bother to own land.

Re: Letter from a Young Distributist: Georgism and Distributism

#160

Post by anamax »

colinmhayes wrote: post #156
anamax wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the LVT is causing the owner to not be able to afford parking lots the area needs more buildings and less parking lots, even if that's just a parking structure. In what universe is "fewer parking lots" the solution to "not enough parking lots"? As Orwell wrote, “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”

I mean tbh we just have a paradigm difference. IMO there is no such thing as not enough parking lots. They're wasteful eyesores that encourage a horrible externality.

And yet, shopping centers with parking lots do more business than shopping centers without parking.

You may like a life where you're dependent on delivery services for anything you can't carry to where it needs to go but the rest of us aren't willing to wear that hair shirt.

Post reply on HN