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

211–220 of 322 posts

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#211

Post by mullingitover »

throwaway201103 wrote: post #206
mullingitover wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean, we ruthlessly tax working for a living, I just don't see why we don't tax speculation gains the same.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#212

Post by scarmig »

willcipriano wrote: post #190
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…

I would not sell my home at the assessed value. As I would have to move my family, get a new mortgage, and change jobs and schools potentially. I live in a fairly expensive area and a home that meets my requirements (no hoa, not a townhouse) is hard to find. I may have to fork out twice as much to get something that meets those requirements. I don't see that as a great reason why I should pay taxes more than my neigh…

You're selling the land underneath your house, not your house. And you wouldn't have to move: you'd pay some use fee to the new owner (though there'd probably be some kind of option to revaluate after a bid to prevent a whole lot of churn).

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#213

Post by comex »

syrrim wrote: post #176
lilgreenland wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a really good example of the slippery slope logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

It's a slippery slope argument. Logicians demand perfect rigour, and label reasoning that fails to attain that a "fallacy". Humans are satisfied with heuristical arguments, which the slippery slope is an example of. Pointing out that it fails to achieve perfect rigour is meaningless; no argument reaches that bar, and demands to pursue it will only result in obfuscation. Instead, try to explain why the heuristic doesn…

Why would a government not raise expenditures to the level of its budget? Perhaps to pay off debt, but that's only useful in limited circumstances.

On the other hand, certain parts of the political spectrum are very emphatic about wanting to reduce both budget and expenditures, and sometimes manage to do so.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#214

Post by dantheman »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #114
supernova87a wrote: post #46

There was a convincing op-ed in WSJ a few years ago about how in all the states that are facing public sector defaults, the ultimate payer of these debts will be homeowners. Since basically the only place left for most governments to go is property value (unless they have huge businesses they can tax). And it is worse in the poorer states, because they don't have high home values to cushion the blow to the individual…

I wish, but household owners are so politically powerful I doubt it will happen.

Maybe those to whom the debt is owned won't get paid or won't get paid completely -- these debts aren't valid. Taking debt in someone elses name is immoral - especially when most of it public sector unions voting in those across the negotiating table.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#215

Post by quotemstr »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #11

1. UBI 2. LVT 3. Environmental externality taxes That's all we need to fix the 21st century. Simple as hell so basically immune to regulatory capture, and will usher in a rate of progress we haven't seen in 100 years, if ever.

> UBI

I'm skeptical of UBI. The idea doesn't include any kind of automatic stabilization system to set the UBI at a sustainable level. Because UBI is not market-based, there's little information that flows into the process that sets of level of UBI and other redistribution systems. In a market system, a distributed consensus algorithm governs both wages and prices and adjusts both continuously to account for changes in scarcity and utility.

Who decides how much UBI is enough? What procedure will that person or body use? What is the algorithm that prevents UBI increasing without bound? After all, the public voting itself unsustainable transfers from the state is one of the classic failure modes of democracy.

No matter the initial level of UBI, there will be someone who's able to gain political advantage by claiming that the UBI is insufficient for a dignified existence and that human rights demand an increase. Proposing a decrease in UBI will be political suicide. What prevents UBI increasing to the point that it captures all excess value production from all of society and redistributes it evenly? Wouldn't that system be tantamount to the planned economies of the 20th century?

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#216

Post by valuearb »

The problem with this op-ed is that it's based on an entirely false premise, it completely ignores how much revenues governments need.

Clinton was able to run a federal government spending less than 20% of GDP, since George Walker Bush federal spending has exploded to the 25 to 30% range. The reality is that 20% is plenty, and can solve all the problems government has the ability to solve.

Need to start by NOT

1) serving as the worlds policeman

2) building double the aircraft carrier tonnage of the rest of the world combined.

3) spending a trillion dollars on newest latest fighters not ready for service when we aren't at war

4) staging US troops and ships in the Middle East or Europe when both are immensely wealthy and able to defend themselves.

5) pouring $40B into a launch system design based on obsolete technologies and an overweight deep space capsule that needs a year to replace a single bad power unit.

6) subsidizing professional sports leagues paying millions a year per employee. etc, etc.

A good start would be requiring senators and congresspeople to recuse themselves from any legislation that specifically allocates funds for any projects in their states/districts. Get away from the thousand page earmarked pork funding bills and focus their responsibilities on legitimate national interests.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#217

Post by willcipriano »

scarmig wrote: post #212
willcipriano wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not sell my home at the assessed value. As I would have to move my family, get a new mortgage, and change jobs and schools potentially. I live in a fairly expensive area and a home that meets my requirements (no hoa, not a townhouse) is hard to find. I may have to fork out twice as much to get something that meets those requirements. I don't see that as a great reason why I should pay taxes more than my neigh…

You're selling the land underneath your house, not your house. And you wouldn't have to move: you'd pay some use fee to the new owner (though there'd probably be some kind of option to revaluate after a bid to prevent a whole lot of churn).

My choice in buying the home was made for twofold reasons firstly to no longer be subject to the whims of a landlord, secondly to lock in my costs of housing against inflation. This would rob me of both those advantages. I don't see how you would get any homeowners to vote for a proposal like that.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#218

Post by chrismcb »

pdonis wrote: post #195
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.

> When your sector makes up like three of the five most valuable companies on the planet, we probably should be taxing it more. The problem is that increasing the corporate income tax rate just doesn't provide enough revenue. Corporate income taxes are only 7% of the US government's annual tax revenue, for example. Even if we doubled the corporate income tax rate, that's still only another 7% of the total tax revenue…

It is even more complicated than that. Suppose you take the $3T. How do you convert that wealth into money? You essentially can't, and if you try to do it so at once you'll end up with much less than $3T.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#219

Post by quotemstr »

valuearb wrote: post #216

The problem with this op-ed is that it's based on an entirely false premise, it completely ignores how much revenues governments need. Clinton was able to run a federal government spending less than 20% of GDP, since George Walker Bush federal spending has exploded to the 25 to 30% range. The reality is that 20% is plenty, and can solve all the problems government has the ability to solve. Need to start by NOT 1) ser…

> Need to start by not 1) serving as the worlds policeman 2) building double the aircraft carrier tonnage of the rest of the world combined. 3) spending a trillion dollars on newest latest fighters not ready for service when we aren't at war, 4) staging US troops and ships in the Middle East or Europe when both are immensely wealthy and able to defend themselves. 5) pouring $40B into a launch system design based on obsolete technologies and an overweight deep space capsule that needs a year to replace a single bad power unit. 6) Not subsidizing professional sports leagues paying millions a year per employee. etc, etc.

Have you looked at the federal budget? The expenditures you mention are insignificant. Social security and medical assistance programs make up 48% [1] of the federal budget. Defense only makes up 16%, and of that, only 27% goes to the navy. Another 8% is various assistance programs. 8% is interest on debt. 0.5% is all of NASA.

You can't really reduce the government's expenditure levels by cutting a few high-profile programs that some consider wasteful. The majority of the budget goes to supporting the most vulnerable in society. Cutting these programs is politically impossible.

> thousand page earmarked pork funding bills and focus their responsibilities on legitimate national interests.

Earmarks are dead already. But they shouldn't be: earmarks let lawmakers swap favors in a way that promotes the smooth operation of government and compromise in lawmaking. Yes, there's some corruption, but that corruption was a small price to pay for decreasing the overall level of hostility in the legislature and promoting compromise.

[1] https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-w...

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#220

Post by roenxi »

teddyh wrote: post #194
roenxi wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... in essence forcing landowners to always use the land in a way which extracts the maximum amount of money from it ... That incentive already exists, landholders typically use their land in a high-value way. If you cast your eye on Europe there are a large contingent of undeserving people who have generations of wealth that they secure through owning land, which does not degrade over time. The big win of a land t…

The general incentive to make money always exists, yes, but if LVT is implemented, there would, I assume, be an almost insurmountable force compelling landowners to do so. I compared LVT with the idea of “fiduciary duty” with intentional precision; CEOs are also, in general, incentivized to make money, but the idea behind decrying the alleged fiduciary duty is that a CEO is supposedly more or less forced to do whatev…

Fiduciary duty isn't that big of a deal compared to the general incentive to make money. When CEOs are hired they are screened to be the sort of people who want to make money. If I had a controlling share of a company and the CEO didn't want to make profitable decisions there isn't any special legal construct needed - he'd be gone and somebody new would be hired. Most shareholders are the same.

> ... regardless if they might feel that the community would be better served by using the land for something which would, incidentally, make less money for them personally ...

The community obviously disagrees with our landholder in this scenario, or the community can stump up the cash to pay the land taxes or hold the land publically.

It is just 1 more expense. It isn't like running a soup kitchen was ever free, someone is paying for the soup. Giving a donation of space is the same as giving a donation of time and materials.

There are incentives, but there isn't anything especially new here. It isn't going to be radically different from a mortgage in the short term, and in the long term the change is competent people will own land instead of old families.

Post reply on HN