Tax the Land • Hacker News Board

Re: Tax the Land

#281

Post by cascom » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 5:07 AM UTC

diebeforei485 wrote: post #121

giantg2 wrote: post #13

"The big question land value taxes help answer is: How can a government raise funds without distorting choices and possibly leaving people worse off? If you tax income, it provides a disincentive to work. If you tax property, it provides a disincentive to improve the physical buildings on top of the land." Of course it will distort choices and leave some people worse off. If the author can't see that, then they have…

> We already see standard property tax forcing the elderly out of their homes in many areas. It's reasonable to offer options to low-income retirees, for example allowing them to defer property tax payments until death. Texas does this, it works alright. Note that a single family dewlling on .75 acres likely costs the government a lot of money to provide services (plumbing, sewer, electric etc) and is likely already…

What are you talking about? The city/county charges for those services - us municipalities are going broke for two simple reasons 1) public pensions 2) mismanagement

Re: Tax the Land

#282

Post by barry-cotter » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 5:12 AM UTC

charlescooper wrote: post #254

wan23 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is a place where there should be more homes if you were looking at it from a regional perspective, it is in the interest of the people who live there to block those new homes from being built to limit supply of the asset they own. The people who would vote in favor of the new homes don't actually get to vote, since they don't live there yet.

I think it makes sense that people who don’t live within a community should not be permitted to vote in that community’s elections. Consider the question for states or countries. Would it make sense for Massachusetts residents to vote in Connecticut‘s elections? Or Canadian residents to vote in the US’s elections?

> Would it make sense for Massachusetts residents to vote in Connecticut‘s elections?

They do. Residents of Massachusetts, Connecticut and other states all vote for President, Congressfolk and Senators.

Re: Tax the Land

#283

Post by woojoo666 » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 5:15 AM UTC

The Vox article says

> The LVT also has an appealing underlying moral framework: The luck to own a piece of land that happens to appreciate — say, you bought a house in San Francisco before the tech boom — should not come with it the ability to extract rents without providing value.

It seems a bit presumptious to say it is all luck - that somebody couldn't have predicted that the land would appreciate and thus bought early as a strategic move.

Re: Tax the Land

#284

Post by Manuel_D » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 5:17 AM UTC

causality0 wrote: post #204

Local governments, which have been granted near unchecked authority by state governments, are entirely captured by homeowners. I'm not fully clear on this statement. Is it putting forth that local governments shouldn't be controlled by the people who are local, or is it saying that homeowners hold more power than renters? If the former, that's just silly. If the latter, renters get the same one vote per person as eve…

This attitude here is precisely why local zoning is ineffective. The people who are negatively impacted by anti-development policies are the ones that don't get the privilege of living in economically powerful population centers in the first place. Sure, the home-owners might grumble about an apartment blocking their view, more crowded restaurants, or "neighborhood character as a city grows. The people who are negatively impacted by anti-growth policy are people struggling to afford rent in increasingly subdivided units, and the people who can't even afford to move there in the first place.

Re: Tax the Land

#285

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 5:19 AM UTC

charlescooper wrote: post #254

wan23 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is a place where there should be more homes if you were looking at it from a regional perspective, it is in the interest of the people who live there to block those new homes from being built to limit supply of the asset they own. The people who would vote in favor of the new homes don't actually get to vote, since they don't live there yet.

I think it makes sense that people who don’t live within a community should not be permitted to vote in that community’s elections. Consider the question for states or countries. Would it make sense for Massachusetts residents to vote in Connecticut‘s elections? Or Canadian residents to vote in the US’s elections?

Ask it differently. Ask it about time.

"Does it make sense that the people voting today can decide to stop other people from voting here in the future?"

That's what zoning, housing policy and other local government decisions are capable of doing.

Re: Tax the Land

#286

Post by Manuel_D » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 5:21 AM UTC

charlescooper wrote: post #254

wan23 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is a place where there should be more homes if you were looking at it from a regional perspective, it is in the interest of the people who live there to block those new homes from being built to limit supply of the asset they own. The people who would vote in favor of the new homes don't actually get to vote, since they don't live there yet.

I think it makes sense that people who don’t live within a community should not be permitted to vote in that community’s elections. Consider the question for states or countries. Would it make sense for Massachusetts residents to vote in Connecticut‘s elections? Or Canadian residents to vote in the US’s elections?

I don't think anyone argues against the idea that people should belong to the community in which they're voting. But the question is, how fine or coarse grained of a "community" should be in charge of land use. For instance, someone who stays unemployed in a poor region passing up jobs in Seattle or San Francisco because of housing shortages is arguably just as affected as home owners that have to deal with greater density. But only the latter gets to decide local zoning laws.

Re: Tax the Land

#287

Post by Manuel_D » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 5:24 AM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #90

aperson_hello wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting that 0.75 acres to turn over is exactly the point. Incentivizing them to leave (or better yet: subdivide and sell the land) is good for society. This policy only makes sense where zoning is also loosened enough to actually build on the land though...if zoning doesn't allow you to do anything with the land to make more money (building apartments, subdividing, etc.), this just becomes a tax on poor landowners.

"Getting that 0.75 acres to turn over is exactly the point. Incentivizing them to leave (or better yet: subdivide and sell the land) is good for society." I doubt the affected person feels it's good. Quite frankly, the land value tax ideas seem absurd to me. It's just another redistribution scheme - work hard, retire, get forced off your land via tax. It seems it's the government's and everyone else's desire to just…

No, I think the affected person is happy making a killing on their real estate investment. Property taxes are linked to property values, if the value of your home goes up so high that property taxes are unaffordable then their must have seen significant gains in their real estate values.

Re: Tax the Land

#288

Post by diob » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 5:28 AM UTC

Cd00d wrote: post #239

marcus0x62 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Average expenses for a landlord on a well-managed SFH run 45 - 50% of gross rents.

I find this extremely dubious based on my own experiences with renting and home maintenance. You need a citation to be at all credible.

Maybe they mean they need that much to live purely off the rental income, for their hands are like gelatin desserts. :)

https://i.redd.it/f0kl4a40cl861.jpg

Re: Tax the Land

#289

Post by refurb » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 5:36 AM UTC

diebeforei485 wrote: post #121

giantg2 wrote: post #13

"The big question land value taxes help answer is: How can a government raise funds without distorting choices and possibly leaving people worse off? If you tax income, it provides a disincentive to work. If you tax property, it provides a disincentive to improve the physical buildings on top of the land." Of course it will distort choices and leave some people worse off. If the author can't see that, then they have…

> We already see standard property tax forcing the elderly out of their homes in many areas. It's reasonable to offer options to low-income retirees, for example allowing them to defer property tax payments until death. Texas does this, it works alright. Note that a single family dewlling on .75 acres likely costs the government a lot of money to provide services (plumbing, sewer, electric etc) and is likely already…

When I built my house I paid full price to have those utilities brought to my house. We’re talking over $100,000. And I continue to pay service charges for maintenance of all utilities.

Re: Tax the Land

#290

Post by Manuel_D » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 5:36 AM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #94

trgn wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If I have .75 acres with a single family home and 30 years later the area around me is developed I think this is exactly the framework. The idea is that that person right now is benefitting from increased community wealth (which would be realized in actual moneys upon sale of their property), and hence, should be taxed more. Maybe there are some sophisticated ways to strike a balance, to avoid the situation you are…

"(which would be realized in actual moneys upon sale of their property), and hence, should be taxed more." If it were taxed only when realized, that would make sense. "It's the poor use of land right now that I believe is the main driver of poor affordability of housing." It's the preference of a large number of people to live in a small area. You could fix this by capping the number of jobs so that increases in popu…

> You could fix this by capping the number of jobs so that increases in population would be forced to distribute more evenly through the country.

Can you? A restaurant is very busy and want to hire a new server. But, what, a city official says they can't because the city hit its jobs limit?