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

311–320 of 322 posts

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#311

Post by shaggyfrog »

dang wrote: post #310
shaggyfrog wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear you, dang, but I’d rather not spend my time on a site that also hosts those kinds of articles. I don’t want to support them. I don’t want them to gain credence because they happen to have an article that’s not filled with harmful paranoid delusions. I don’t want my pageview to give them credibility capital. In other words, I don’t think it’s possible to completely separate an article from its site, and so why…

One problem with this argument is that users don't agree on what sites deserve that description. If we were to ban the union of all sites that some people feel this way about, that would be a lot of bannage. I don't think HN would be better for this. The main thing to understand about HN is that we're trying to optimize for intellectual curiosity: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... . I'm…

I’m not sure what argument you are asserting I’m making; it sounds like you’re saying I’m suggesting this site should be banned. I’m not. I’m merely stating my reasons for not reading the article, and why there are negative consequences of HN boosting the profile of sites like this. And that the “prefer article quality over site quality” rule is idealistic because it pays insufficient (if any) consideration to consequences of using this platform to boost theirs.

You frame this in terms of optimization, but I’m framing this in terms of acknowledging there are negative consequences are of boosting problematic platforms (and perhaps having a discussion in terms of what negative consequences we as a community will accept).

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#312

Post by tekkk »

pydry wrote: post #303
tekkk wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Poorer folk in the countryside will be surrounded by land that is worth less and will be taxed less accordingly. Land value tax means a square meter in manhattan gets taxed the same as an acre in middle of nowhere wyoming. Rich folk hoarding higher value but physically smaller land/buildings in the city centres surrounded by amenities and transport infrastructure will be buried in taxes. Either they make that land wo…

Ok, I see. But still, this boosted urbanization doesn't seem that great for building diverse cities. Just making as tall and densely-packed buildings as possible. Yeah, ok if you build villas in the city center I can see it being useful but it seems very similar to the current taxation.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#313

Post by yellowapple »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #306
yellowapple wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I don’t agree that property rights ought to be snatched from owners. Nobody's calling for any snatching of property rights. What's being called for is for landowners to internalize the opportunity costs they've externalized on the rest of society (and, indeed, the planet). > I also don’t think we could keep on increasing the world population when we have clearly crossed carrying capacity. As much as I agree, un…

When you start instructing landowners what to do with their property, that’s infringing upon property rights especially if failure to do so results in penalizing them. Your argument states that empty land would be better served if it’s used for other human beings. The same argument if applied to a time scale rather than upon land resources, it is rational to conclude that our planet is better off if people had 1/2 su…

> When you start instructing landowners what to do with their property

Nowhere is anyone instructing anyone else. Requiring landowners to internalize the opportunity costs they externalize onto everyone else is not unreasonable.

> If land owners should be taxed for owning land they don’t use

They should be taxed for land period, whether they're using it or not, since all land ownership inherently entails the externalization of opportunity costs on everyone else. And if they're using it for something productive, they'll have a much easier time paying that tax.

> we should also have a child tax

That's already built into a land value tax. Land's value - like the value of anything else - is a function of supply and demand. The supply of land is fixed, and demand is a function of population (more people in the world = more people needing places to live and work and play = more demand for land). So, as more humans enter the world, the value of land goes up, and therefore so does the tax on that land's value.

> people who own property don’t contribute to suburbs and rural sprawl.

They literally do, be it by owning the land encompassing that sprawl or by owning the land within urban centers and refusing to develop it into denser residential spaces. This is the mathematical reality. If you want a reduction in humanity's carbon footprint, a land value tax is one of the most effective levers to drive that reduction.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#314

Post by yellowapple »

neilsense wrote: post #286
yellowapple wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Right, it's "ridiculous" to point out that the very premise of that "genuine" concern is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how land ownership works in pretty much every common law jurisdiction (the US included) because... reasons.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#315

Post by centimeter »

cortesoft wrote: post #43
centimeter wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can determine if the article is internally self-consistent and externally consistent with your priors.

Those two things are necessary, but not sufficient, to prove something is credible. The best propaganda will meet those two requirements.

Then why ever read anything?

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#316

Post by JimTheMan »

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.

I'm not sure how UBI wouldn't just trigger massive inflation and knock a lot of wind out of the sails of people who receive the income.

Wouldn't a less punitive system of welfare properly distribute the wealth with none of the requirement to be universal?

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#317

Post by dragonwriter »

JimTheMan wrote: post #316
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.

I'm not sure how UBI wouldn't just trigger massive inflation and knock a lot of wind out of the sails of people who receive the income. Wouldn't a less punitive system of welfare properly distribute the wealth with none of the requirement to be universal?

> I'm not sure how UBI wouldn't just trigger massive inflation and knock a lot of wind out of the sails of people who receive the income.

It wouldn't by being calibrated (preferably by being indexed to a revenue source and not to inflation) to be at a level where that wouldn't occur, which is a factor of productivity and other factors.

> Wouldn't a less punitive system of welfare properly distribute the wealth with none of the requirement to be universal?

UBI is a less punitive welfare system; any retreat from universality is restoring the essence of the punitive factor which also is the driver of wasteful administrative overhead by duplicating functions already performed in the progressive income tax system.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#318

Post by webmaven »

pdonis wrote: post #199
mullingitover wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When your sector makes up like three of the five most valuable companies on the planet, we probably should be taxing it more. Agreed. We should be ruthlessly taxing capital gains, and in general should look upon money earned without laboring for it with scorn.

> money earned without laboring for it Tell that to startup founders whose only income from all the work they put in on their startup is capital gains.

> > money earned without laboring for it

> Tell that to startup founders whose only income from all the work they put in on their startup is capital gains.

I think there really ought to be more of a distinction made between taxing the upside of sweat equity vs. literal capital gains (as in, the return on invested capital).

Also, startup founders should only be deferring their salary (or a portion of it), not forgoing it entirely.

For that matter, it's insane that VC fund managers only pay capital gains tax rates on carried interest and management fees. The fees are really just ordinary income plain and simple (which they get regardless of how the fund does), and while carried interest is technically a return on invested capital, it's entirely OPM and seems like a dodge that lets the manager participate in the upside of the fund with no actual skin in the game, so what's the point of taxing it at a preferential rate?

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#319

Post by pydry »

tekkk wrote: post #312
pydry wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poorer folk in the countryside will be surrounded by land that is worth less and will be taxed less accordingly. Land value tax means a square meter in manhattan gets taxed the same as an acre in middle of nowhere wyoming. Rich folk hoarding higher value but physically smaller land/buildings in the city centres surrounded by amenities and transport infrastructure will be buried in taxes. Either they make that land wo…

Ok, I see. But still, this boosted urbanization doesn't seem that great for building diverse cities. Just making as tall and densely-packed buildings as possible. Yeah, ok if you build villas in the city center I can see it being useful but it seems very similar to the current taxation.

The difference is going to be less what gets built and who gets to profit. Instead of land speculators like Donald Trump making profits off the backs of our hard work the unearned land wealth will be distributed more evenly.

In both scenarios few people will build villas in downtown Manhattan because it is too profitable to build skyscrapers instead. The difference is that with LVT building a villa will be a massive tax burden whereas under our current system there is no tax burden.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#320

Post by chrismcb »

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).

This sounds like an insane rich get richer scheme. I can either set a high value on my land and pay to much in taxes, or pretty much guarantee that someone would by my land. Why wouldn't they? They can buy the land, immediately place a higher value (they make the money on the resale) then charge a user few to cover the tax plus their income. As a current homeowner about the only thing I can do is place a high value on the land myself. Enough that is someone buys it out makes it easier for me to move. But then I'm paying higher taxes. Of course I have the problem with the new house. Essentially this removes land ownership from the average person. Some might say that isn't a bad thing, but it is when only the rich can afford land.
Post reply on HN