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

281–290 of 322 posts

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#281

Post by chillacy »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #110
hourislate wrote: post #53

The only thing inevitable will be that eventually Land-Value taxes will not be enough (if implemented) and then what? There is no end or limit to the amount of money a Government can squander.

While I don't agree with your premise that private sector is magically more efficient, let's just accept it. The government can also hand out cash raised from the LVT as a UBI. Problem solved.

If the definition of squander is defined such that any government spending on anything OP don’t benefit from counts as squandering, then it’s not so easily solved. A bit tongue in cheek but not an uncommon opinion.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#282

Post by chillacy »

CincinnatiMan wrote: post #229
teddyh wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 monocul…

This is an interesting thought. It's like how we want developers to build affordable housing, but through the market they are forced to only create "luxury" developments in order to make up for the large fixed cost of the land.

Food for thought: profit per square foot could stay the same by decreasing unit size and increasing the number of units if zoning allowed it.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#283

Post by chillacy »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #52
Ericson2314 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only sounds that we because there is so much yeoman farmer -> suburban everyman stuff in our heads. The land is our collective inheritence, so someone with 1 story bungalow on highly desireable land is actually extremely selfish and decedent in their misuse of the commons. To get less moral and more mathematical, developers can lessen their tax only to the extent that the flood the market with floors pace, deval…

Are people who have more than one child (or 2.1, if you’d like for monogamous couples) selfish too?

If you’re hinting at taxing having more kids, I know it’s an unpopular idea but honestly it sounds decent to me.

It just doesn’t mesh well with the declining birth rates in developed nations. Some countries are paying people to have kids, and it’s not working very well.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#284

Post by chillacy »

adwf wrote: post #123
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…

Indeed, the biggest problem with LVT is who exactly gets to value the land and how. It's an extraordinarily difficult issue which would require a very precise implementation. Once you start assessing peoples property in such a wholesale fashion, you almost end up in a classic "managed economy" situation. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" failed due to the combined difficulty of asse…

There have been some interesting market driven pricing schemes mentioned in this thread where your property tax is set based on an auction model, though that seems to have the opposite problem where the person with the largest bank can steamroll everyone else. High capital efficiency though.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#285

Post by BMSmnqXAE4yfe1 »

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.

Military spending is $934 billion in the 2021 budget. It's spread out among different agencies and budget categories, so you must add it all together. It includes:

    Defense Department base budget: $636 billion.
    DoD Overseas Contingency Operations: $69 billion.
    Departments that support defense: $228 billion. They include the Department of Veterans Affairs ($93 billion), State Department ($48 billion), Homeland Security ($48 billion), FBI and Cybersecurity ($10 billion), and the National Nuclear Security Administration ($17 billion).
This is 63% of all the discretionary spending in the budget, i.e. the budget outside of mandatory payments such as Social Security.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#286

Post by neilsense »

yellowapple wrote: post #254
willcipriano wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> firstly to no longer be subject to the whims of a landlord Unless you have an allodial title (hint: you almost certainly do not), you are always subject to the whims of at least one landlord, specifically the state.

What a ridiculous response to a genuine concern.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#287

Post by neilsense »

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.

Someone's spending too much time on Twitter

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#288

Post by tekkk »

pdonis wrote: post #192
tekkk wrote: post #177

I think this has been implemented already in Finland. The tax administration evaluates the property's value (both land and infrastructure) and taxes it accordingly, eg 0.5%. For unused land the municipality can set an extra tax to coerce the land owner to develop the land, for example 1 to 3 percent. But I wouldn't say it is a miracle maker, just a part of an effective taxation system. What I personally would do, if…

> The tax administration evaluates the property's value (both land and infrastructure) That's not what the article is proposing; it specifies a tax only on the land, not on whatever is built on the land. The point is to incentivize transferring ownership of the land to whoever can get the highest value use out of it; that only works if the tax itself is only on the land, so it makes sense to build higher value infras…

Sure, but would that be the case either way? I am quite suspicious how it would work better than the property + undeveloped land tax. And I would say LVT would disproportionally affect the poorer folk who live in the country side with a lot of land without anything to build on it. But I guess these points have already been discussed in this thread.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#290

Post by pydry »

enriquto wrote: post #201
pydry wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If they'd skipped straight to UBI they likely wouldn't have done these jobs.
Post reply on HN