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

Redfin Economist says land value tax will fix the economy

narrativespodcast.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 238 posts

Re: Redfin Economist says land value tax will fix the economy

#211

Post by yellowapple »

SllX wrote: post #160
yellowapple wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Costs are not borne by the business but paid for by their customers in a manner which is usually obscured to them. Only if the supply of the thing being taxed is elastic. The supply of land is inelastic, so (returning to the original topic) there is no way to price LVT into downstream rents; attempting to do so would mean pricing the thing above the value set by its demand, which would mean even less profit.

Yes but there is a way to fire anyone who sets an arbitrarily high LVT, which is why the OP at the root of this comment thread called a very high LVT a politically unserious proposal (emphasis mine) and I agree with that. Property taxes do go into the cost of business by the way; and that would be true for an LVT as well. The land itself may be inelastic but that isn’t necessarily true of the products and services th…

> Yes but there is a way to fire anyone who sets an arbitrarily high LVT

Yes but that requires a majority to want to abolish said LVT, whereas the majority would stand to benefit from an LVT as close to 100% (of economic rent) as possible.

> Property taxes do go into the cost of business by the way; and that would be true for an LVT as well.

Most businesses (last I checked) lease from commercial landlords, which means property taxes and LVT would both be part of rent - which, again, can't be raised to account for LVT without violating supply v. demand constraints and hurting profits as a result.

Even for those businesses which do own land outright, land prices are also currently a factor in the cost of business; they're no worse off by replacing a giant lump sum with LVT.

Re: Redfin Economist says land value tax will fix the economy

#212

Post by yellowapple »

SllX wrote: post #165
yellowapple wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by increasing the cost of owning it by fiat You're ignoring the reductions/eliminations of other taxes. For example, replacing property taxes with LVT is the usual "first step", and would reduce costs for most homeowners (whose land is typically less valuable than the house sitting on it). Same with sales tax, or income tax, or any other non-LVT tax; non-LVT taxes are less efficient than LVT, so replacing them with…

> You're ignoring the reductions/eliminations of other taxes. For example, replacing property taxes with LVT is the usual "first step" I’m not against replacing other taxes with LVT. I’m against the misapplication of tax authority for purposes which are not subordinate to covering the cost of governance. > The private ownership of land is itself theft from the commons, and is itself the product of state power and aut…

> No.

Yes. Or do you believe land titles to be magical artifacts that the rest of society obeys for the hell of it? Land ownership would not exist (and therefore wouldn't need taxed) if not for the state using its monopoly on violence to enforce your piece of paper; given that state-issued privilege, it should be entirely unsurprising that you might be called upon to pay accordingly.

Re: Redfin Economist says land value tax will fix the economy

#213

Post by SllX »

yellowapple wrote: post #212
SllX wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're ignoring the reductions/eliminations of other taxes. For example, replacing property taxes with LVT is the usual "first step" I’m not against replacing other taxes with LVT. I’m against the misapplication of tax authority for purposes which are not subordinate to covering the cost of governance. > The private ownership of land is itself theft from the commons, and is itself the product of state power and aut…

> No. Yes. Or do you believe land titles to be magical artifacts that the rest of society obeys for the hell of it? Land ownership would not exist (and therefore wouldn't need taxed) if not for the state using its monopoly on violence to enforce your piece of paper; given that state-issued privilege, it should be entirely unsurprising that you might be called upon to pay accordingly.

You only need society and weapons and as it turns out, the thing we build most is societies with the intent of providing for our posterity, closely closely seconded by weapons. The absence of the State as we know it isn’t the absence of private property. If you want to imagine life without the State but with modern technology, try something more akin to a cross between Europe in the Middle Ages and drug cartels. I think Neal Stephenson wrote a book about it, but in any case private property rights are recognized by the State by custom (or “common law” if you prefer), not derived from the State, even though they can be deprived from you by the State by due process per the compromises we made in our Constitutional order.

Re: Redfin Economist says land value tax will fix the economy

#214

Post by SllX »

yellowapple wrote: post #211
SllX wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but there is a way to fire anyone who sets an arbitrarily high LVT, which is why the OP at the root of this comment thread called a very high LVT a politically unserious proposal (emphasis mine) and I agree with that. Property taxes do go into the cost of business by the way; and that would be true for an LVT as well. The land itself may be inelastic but that isn’t necessarily true of the products and services th…

> Yes but there is a way to fire anyone who sets an arbitrarily high LVT Yes but that requires a majority to want to abolish said LVT, whereas the majority would stand to benefit from an LVT as close to 100% (of economic rent) as possible. > Property taxes do go into the cost of business by the way; and that would be true for an LVT as well. Most businesses (last I checked) lease from commercial landlords, which mean…

> Yes but that requires a majority to want to abolish said LVT, whereas the majority would stand to benefit from an LVT as close to 100% (of economic rent) as possible.

I mean as close to 100% is probably like maybe 4-5% at most, if the LVT on the land and the property tax on the structure were added up to that going by this Strongtown article someone linked me somewhere in this comment chain about how some PA towns have done it.

I think you’re reading me and getting the wrong idea about what it is I’m arguing against. LVT’s as a tax are okay in lieu of other taxes, provided they’re in lieu of other taxes and also the rate is not set arbitrarily high to accomplish nebulous other social goals. That last part is requirement for every sort of tax, and excessive government revenue should dollar for dollar be returned to the people it was levied from.

Re: Redfin Economist says land value tax will fix the economy

#215

Post by yellowapple »

SllX wrote: post #214
yellowapple wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes but there is a way to fire anyone who sets an arbitrarily high LVT Yes but that requires a majority to want to abolish said LVT, whereas the majority would stand to benefit from an LVT as close to 100% (of economic rent) as possible. > Property taxes do go into the cost of business by the way; and that would be true for an LVT as well. Most businesses (last I checked) lease from commercial landlords, which mean…

> Yes but that requires a majority to want to abolish said LVT, whereas the majority would stand to benefit from an LVT as close to 100% (of economic rent) as possible. I mean as close to 100% is probably like maybe 4-5% at most, if the LVT on the land and the property tax on the structure were added up to that going by this Strongtown article someone linked me somewhere in this comment chain about how some PA towns…

> I think you’re reading me and getting the wrong idea about what it is I’m arguing against.

I don't think I am. Rather, I think our disconnect is that I disagree with your implication that fully internalizing the negative externalities produced by the ownership of land as property is a "nebulous other social goal".

The endgoal - i.e. the full internalization of those opportunity costs externalized onto every other member of society - is 100% LVT with all surpluses disbursed evenly as a citizens' dividend (a.k.a. "UBI" in more modern parlance). Anything short of that is theft by landowners from everyone else (including other landowners, but especially those without land at all); the question is how much theft the general public will continue to tolerate, and for how much longer.

Re: Redfin Economist says land value tax will fix the economy

#216

Post by SllX »

yellowapple wrote: post #215
SllX wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes but that requires a majority to want to abolish said LVT, whereas the majority would stand to benefit from an LVT as close to 100% (of economic rent) as possible. I mean as close to 100% is probably like maybe 4-5% at most, if the LVT on the land and the property tax on the structure were added up to that going by this Strongtown article someone linked me somewhere in this comment chain about how some PA towns…

> I think you’re reading me and getting the wrong idea about what it is I’m arguing against. I don't think I am. Rather, I think our disconnect is that I disagree with your implication that fully internalizing the negative externalities produced by the ownership of land as property is a "nebulous other social goal". The endgoal - i.e. the full internalization of those opportunity costs externalized onto every other m…

Ah, in that case you should have just said so.

We are fundamentally at odds then with irreconcilable differences of opinion on private property. The protection of private property is a core justification for the State, because as I replied to you elsewhere, private property doesn’t cease without the State but the situation around it becomes more volatile. I do not seek to re-base the State on the socialization of land value and you probably couldn’t with an extreme amount of State violence.

Re: Redfin Economist says land value tax will fix the economy

#217

Post by yellowapple »

SllX wrote: post #213
yellowapple wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No. Yes. Or do you believe land titles to be magical artifacts that the rest of society obeys for the hell of it? Land ownership would not exist (and therefore wouldn't need taxed) if not for the state using its monopoly on violence to enforce your piece of paper; given that state-issued privilege, it should be entirely unsurprising that you might be called upon to pay accordingly.

You only need society and weapons and as it turns out, the thing we build most is societies with the intent of providing for our posterity, closely closely seconded by weapons. The absence of the State as we know it isn’t the absence of private property. If you want to imagine life without the State but with modern technology, try something more akin to a cross between Europe in the Middle Ages and drug cartels. I th…

> The absence of the State as we know it isn’t the absence of private property.

Yes it is. Any attempt to enforce private property ownership itself entails the attempted creation of a monopoly of violence in respect to that land - also known as "a state".

> try something more akin to a cross between Europe in the Middle Ages and drug cartels

Both feudal lordships and drug cartels (well, the ones that are actually worth fearing, at least) entail the creation and enforcement of a monopoly of violence over a given geographic area (a.k.a. "land"). That would make them states. They collect(ed) taxes, they raise(d) armies, and they generally control(led) the local populace under threat of violence. The latter case is only exceptional due to it competing with another state over control of a given geographic area; that hardly precludes a cartel from being a state, for the same reason that two states at war continue to be states even when they're being invaded by each other.

> private property rights are recognized by the State by custom (or “common law” if you prefer), not derived from the State, even though they can be deprived from you by the State by due process per the compromises we made in our Constitutional order.

If the State can deprive you of your "private" property, then how does that not in and of itself demonstrate rather plainly that the State is the thing from which said property derives? By what authority do you get to claim a piece of land as your own except with the State giving you a piece of paper saying it's yours?

Re: Redfin Economist says land value tax will fix the economy

#218

Post by WalterBright »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #193
WalterBright wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, but their income won't be taxed, which will provide the capital to find all kinds of less-polluting ways to get groceries and vacation in Mexico.

That is assuming we can find less polluting ways of moving mass with similar cost benefit to fossil fuels. Also, I am assuming the few billion people in developing countries will be happy to pick up the slack in fossil fuel demand in the event developed countries do find an alternative. The Middle East can pump it out for a few dollars per barrel, I imagine it will be tough to compete with that.

Give people in a free market an incentive, and they'll find a way.

Re: Redfin Economist says land value tax will fix the economy

#219

Post by WalterBright »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #184
throwaway894345 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely don’t know anything about economics. Is this widely accepted among economists or is it more of an ideological/political axiom?

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent Economic rent isn't the same as just paying landlords rent, though it's related. Economic rent is basically you profiting from owning stuff and doing nothing. It's a pure wealth transfer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking Rent seeking behavior is when you try to acquire more wealth without creating more wealth. This would include behaviors like regulatory capture,…

Standard Oil was losing market share steadily during the years of the anti-trust action against them.

The evidence does not support SO growing to take over the world.

Re: Redfin Economist says land value tax will fix the economy

#220

Post by SllX »

yellowapple wrote: post #217
SllX wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You only need society and weapons and as it turns out, the thing we build most is societies with the intent of providing for our posterity, closely closely seconded by weapons. The absence of the State as we know it isn’t the absence of private property. If you want to imagine life without the State but with modern technology, try something more akin to a cross between Europe in the Middle Ages and drug cartels. I th…

> The absence of the State as we know it isn’t the absence of private property. Yes it is. Any attempt to enforce private property ownership itself entails the attempted creation of a monopoly of violence in respect to that land - also known as "a state". > try something more akin to a cross between Europe in the Middle Ages and drug cartels Both feudal lordships and drug cartels (well, the ones that are actually wor…

That’s a very expansive view of a state.

So in that case would a drug cartel that excludes the government from enforcing its sovereignty over a piece of land be recognizable as a state? I won’t argue, but I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest to you that maybe while a fiefdom could in modern parlance be considered a “state” if it were large enough or managed to make it into the present day with internationally recognized borders (like Liechtenstein), not all fiefdoms were states. I’ve made that mistake too so I won’t knock you for it, but a State as you and I know it is a very very recent invention that entails a bit more than Capitol Hill in lieu of a lord. France prior to their revolution and France post-Napoleon provide the starkest contrast between a feudal Kingdom and a State (in both Kingdom and Republic flavors because they’re restless like that).

> If the State can deprive you of your "private" property, then how does that not in and of itself demonstrate rather plainly that the State is the thing from which said property derives? By what authority do you get to claim a piece of land as your own except with the State giving you a piece of paper saying it's yours?

Well you dropped the due process provision I put in there. Did you know for example that Bills of Attainder are illegal under the Constitution? This would be a legislative instrument where a parliamentary body can simply vote to declare someone guilty of a crime, and simply take their property and even life by majority vote. Those have existed at various points in time, but they are off-limits to Congress (and the States too).

But also a title is not just a piece of paper from the State. Think of a title as a record or evidence of the transaction. It is the agreement between buyer and seller that transfers property rights over a piece of land between two parties, but there isn’t a step where the State steps in and says “I approve this transfer”. The contract is between two parties, not two parties plus the State (unless the State is actually one of the parties to the transaction). Where did the buyer get the rights from? There’s a record of that too, and the State’s role is to keep a record. Maybe it was originally a State grant, but the State forfeited it’s rights with the transfer.

That said, yes, there are ways for the state to take property, so long as due process is followed. This might follow a criminal conviction, or maybe someone died without next of kin and it was determined there was no one to inherit the land, or it was debt collateral, or it was compensated for after an eminent domain action. It isn’t arbitrary.

Post reply on HN