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

231–240 of 322 posts

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#231

Post by DeonPenny »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #96
DeonPenny wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why I presented the solution as a opinion.

By the same logic, the link is also an opinion. Also if you use asset prices as a metric, there has been plenty of inflation.

No he stated things as fact and moved on. I stated I think the US govt has to much money. And I think the US govt is wasteful so taxes now aren't going to help. I think we should incentivize the people with the money to solve these issues.

Thats way different than postulating facts and trying to conclude a narrative based on those facts. Cause I may be wrong about the government having to much money and I fully admit to it.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#232

Post by satyrnein »

throwaway201103 wrote: post #143
mullingitover wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vacant lot in the middle of Manhattan has a massive opportunity cost to society. If you goal is to own a vacant lot and you don't care where it is, trade that vacant lot in Manhattan for another one in rural Alabama.

The apartment tower also has massive costs. It requires high-capacity water, sewer, electric, and trash service. It requires specialized fire protection services including extra training and equipment to fight fires in high rise buildings. It has a massive carbon footprint. Why should a property owner who does not impose any of those costs (or imposes a tiny fraction of them) pay equally for them?

It's the greenest type of residence per capita.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#233

Post by bobthepanda »

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…

Pork barrel spending has not been a thing since 2011 when the House banned earmarks.

This info is woefully out of date, and at least some attribute the sharp increase in partisanship and gridlock to the ban on earmarks preventing horse trading.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#234

Post by pyuser583 »

CincinnatiMan wrote: post #226
pyuser583 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a LVT, the value is whatever it was purchased for.

Typically land is bundled with the improvements to said land though.

For LVT, structures are not considered. It would have to be improvement to the land itself.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#235

Post by valuearb »

bobthepanda wrote: post #233
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…

Pork barrel spending has not been a thing since 2011 when the House banned earmarks. This info is woefully out of date, and at least some attribute the sharp increase in partisanship and gridlock to the ban on earmarks preventing horse trading.

LOL. No longer not using the term "earmarks" in financing legislation is not the same as ending pork barrel spending.

If it is, please explain the SLS. It's entire design was dictated by Congress to use specific components from specific contractors.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#236

Post by valuearb »

quotemstr wrote: post #219
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 o…

LOL Earmarks clearly still exist, just under different names, and have always been used solely for corrupt purposes. Pork barrel spending is a huge price to pay for enabling national legislators to agree to legislation that's clearly bad for the country as a whole, in order to fund projects for their political supports.

And most social security payments go to people with living standards at or above the US median.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#237

Post by valuearb »

snicker7 wrote: post #227
quotemstr wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 o…

Earmarks and pork funding is not even corruption. It is a representative's duty to advocate on behalf of their constituents. And constituents want spending programs in their communities.

Earmarks and pork are nothing other than corruption. The SLS is the clearest example.

US taxpayers have invested close to $20B in a launch system that was outdated the day it was designed and will literally cost 100 times more per pound than commercially available launch systems.

The first reason it's so costly is that the US congress required it to use solid rocket boosters, which increase launch risks, and substantially increase launch costs.

The second reason the SLS is so costly is that congress required it to use RS-25 engines, which were some of the most expensive rocket engines ever designed, originally costing $45M a pop. They were so expensive because they were used on the Shuttle and had to be refurbished between launches instead of expended (destroyed) every launch.

But not only will the RS-25s used on the SLS be expended every launch, Aeroject is getting $100M(!) each to build new ones. And it forced the SLS to use one of the worst possible first stage fuels, Hydrogen, which requires carrying a massively heavy cryogenic tank, construction of has held up launches for years,

By contrast, each SpaceX Merlin which has roughly half the thrust of an RS-25 costs around $500,000 to build, 200 TIMES LESS! And uses a far more compact and effective first stage fuel.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#238

Post by valuearb »

quotemstr wrote: post #228
snicker7 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earmarks and pork funding is not even corruption. It is a representative's duty to advocate on behalf of their constituents. And constituents want spending programs in their communities.

There is a sense in which pork wastes money: distributed production is less efficient than centralized production. And you could call a congressman wasting the public's money to get something for this district a kind of corruption. But like I said, I think this inefficiency is a small price to pay for peace.

It doesn't lead to peace, it leads to terrible legislation hundreds of pages deep in special gifts to special interests at a huge cost to our economy.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#239

Post by valuearb »

snicker7 wrote: post #223
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…

Defence is 12% of federal spending -- or around ~2.5% of GDP, or a whopping 0.5% more than the NATO threshold.

It's actually over 3% of GDP.

NATO is an organization of countries near the Russian border. The US could easily get by with 2% or less to defend it's own borders. If Russia invades Germany we can ship and airlift troops and meet them in France (given that Germany won't spend enough to defend itself).

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#240

Post by valuearb »

pashamur wrote: post #230
valuearb wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, it was an aha moment for me when I understood the reason for the cap gains / normal tax difference. It makes sense that it's an attempt to index for inflation, although strange that there is only one cutoff (securities held for 1 year taxed the same as the ones held for 10 years); you would imagine some sort of step-down function would make more sense / track inflation more accurately (or indexing directly whic…

You don't need different tax rates, just indexing.

Lets have a single fair set of rates with progressivity. A rich man in the 35% tax bracket should pay 35% on their capital gains, just as a poor retiree in the 15% tax bracket should only pay 15% on capital gains.

Post reply on HN