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

Why a land-value tax is inevitable

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 322 posts

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#201

Post by enriquto »

pydry wrote: post #188
enriquto wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The most convincing argument for job guarantee over UBI I saw was plan jefes in argentina. The rest of your text seems to be an argument for UBI and against job guarantee. Is that first sentence what you meant?

Yes. I don't really see how I was arguing in favor of UBI.

You wrote this:

1. a group of people were assured jobs

2. the job assurance was changed to a basic income, no need to work anymore

3. people still showed up to work

errr... seems OK to me? It proves that even if there is an UBI most people will still work. The UBI is just a safety net that assures you do not die of exposure if you get to spend some time without working (for whatever reason). Your example proves that the UBI does not really distort the job market (except for the most shitty jobs, which is alright if they disappear). Also, your example proves that the existence of an UBI does not turn people lazy.

All in all, your example is a great argument for the UBI!

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#202

Post by mullingitover »

dang wrote: post #130
mullingitover wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

My bad, I have edited my comment to make it friendlier.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#203

Post by throwaway201103 »

arrosenberg wrote: post #178
paconbork wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't Walmart already do this? Property assessors already estimate the value of your property and the value of the land plays a part.

Or the very questionable use of eminent domain that some municipalities engage in.

It's really the same as eminent domain. Wal-Mart wants your property for a store? They just need to offer to pay enough that the LVT is unaffordable to you. You'll have no choice but to sell, even if you don't want the money and would rather keep the property.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#204

Post by throwaway201103 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #191
paconbork wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't Walmart already do this? Property assessors already estimate the value of your property and the value of the land plays a part.

Generally no. Values are usually based on sales history.

Value is whatever someone will pay. If Wal-Mart offers $1MM for your land, that is what it is worth, even if the next-best offer is $500K.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#205

Post by ichbinwiederda »

Spooky23 wrote: post #106
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…

I just don’t see this happening. Maybe I live in a different place. Who are these people inheriting land who are too poor to use it, too dumb to sell it and losing it to the county? I live in a high tax state and have served on nonprofit boards that have exposure to housing issues. This didn’t happen. The common problems of this ilk were usually frauds where caregivers, relatives, powers of attorney or others squande…

It happens outside of your bubble. It's not about being dumb. It's about having a certain way of life that values frugality and simple living. But you need land to live on. Go tell the Amish to sell their land and move into a condo because it makes more financial sense.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#206

Post by throwaway201103 »

mullingitover wrote: post #193
throwaway201103 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So taking an investment risk so that a startup can grow is to be looked on with scorn? You might be posting in the wrong community.

Really there just shouldn't be any privileged category for capital gains and it should be taxed like regular income, progressively.

Well that's a bit different than your earlier statement that we should "ruthlessly tax" capital gains.

Capital gains get a favorable treatment because we want to encourage investment that creates economic growth, but comes with risk of loss.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#207

Post by teddyh »

joe_the_user wrote: post #168
teddyh wrote: post #157

The idea of land-value tax strongly reminds me of the often cited, and much maligned, so-called fiduciary duty to shareholders which CEOs and/or board members reportedly have. This duty creates, it is said, an incentive towards naked short-term greed, which is often described as a bad thing. Now, even though this duty is also usually derided as fictional, the argument, if this duty did exist, is reasonable. But does…

The idea of a LVT is that valuable land should an efficient use - the obvious example of inefficiency are the upper middle class neighborhoods on the SF Peninsula - Silicon Valley. The aggressive zoning and relatively low tax situation mean that it's impossible for people who get job in Silicon Valley to live there, causing crazy spill over to the rest of the SF Bay Area. Theoretically, forcing up taxes would force m…

But a city needs different buildings with different uses, no? However, IIUC, a LVT would tax a plot of land by what use it could theoretically be put to in order to make the most money. And this is evaluated individually for each plot of land, with no regard for what would actually happen in reality if every single plot of land would actually be put to use in the most money-making way. Would a LVT not force a monoculture of, say, only lofts, where previously each landowner might have opted to allow things like nightclubs or the occasional park or other forms of variation and whimsy? If you tax every land owner as if they have the maximum possible income, do you not essentially force every landowner to implement that way in order to acquire it?

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#208

Post by valuearb »

mullingitover wrote: post #193
throwaway201103 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So taking an investment risk so that a startup can grow is to be looked on with scorn? You might be posting in the wrong community.

Really there just shouldn't be any privileged category for capital gains and it should be taxed like regular income, progressively.

The reason for giving capital gains a preferred long term rate is inflation. If you invest in business for 10 years and double your money, you've made a 7% annual return. But if inflation averaged 7% during that time you actually made zero economic gains.

A better way to restore progressively to capital gains is to index them for inflation, and then you can tax them at ordinary income rates.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#209

Post by scarmig »

paul_f wrote: post #198
scarmig wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what mechanisms it proposes. One of the funner ones I've heard of is that the owner and payer of the property tax performs the valuation of the land: it makes implementation pretty much free and uncontroversial! The only caveat is that whatever value the owner lists as the value is an amount they must accept for the land in a sale (plus some meaningful fee to drive off trolls). So, sure, you can list the…

This is a land value tax, not a tax on the improvements. If you have a lot worth $50,000 and a house worth $250,000, and place a value of $50,000 on it for tax purposes, do you propose people can buy your house for $50,000?

No, they buy the land underneath your house for $50,000. They can then charge you a use fee for the land. If you don't want to be charged a use fee, you publish a higher price for your land.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#210

Post by mullingitover »

paul_f wrote: post #200
mullingitover wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly! So when you get a mortgage, you're paying for land plus house in the mortgage. Insurers have to know the value of the land alone so they can know the difference and insure just the house.

Actually, no, they don't. Insurers make no valuation on the land, only on the improvements. There is no appraisal done when buying a homeowners or business insurance policy

This still gives you something to work from, since the mortgage (or appraised value) - improvements = land value.
Post reply on HN