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

Tax the Land

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 613 posts

Re: Tax the Land

#311

Post by thematrixturtle »

Gustomaximus wrote: post #297

I feel what's missing from this article is there needs to be a tax free threshold for landtax, much the same how income tax tends to be organised so the first $X earnings are untaxed. Ideally a typical person shouldn't have to pay land tax on their home, otherwise they are effectively renting their own property. Morally I feel government shouldn't tax a home and generally should aim tax to be as small as possible on…

This is a solved problem, since many jurisdictions outside the US already have implemented land taxes. For example, in New South Wales (Sydney), Australia, the tax-free threshold is $550k and you pay land tax only for the portion in excess, with a higher tier kicking in at $3.3M.

https://www.blgba.com.au/insights/nsw-land-tax-apply

Re: Tax the Land

#312

Post by zdragnar »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #285
charlescooper wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't want people living in San Francisco voting on my small Midwestern town's policies or elections just because they might hypothetically choose to live here one day.

Likewise, I don't want non-Americans living in Europe or elsewhere voting in state or federal elections because they might someday choose to become American citizens.

In both cases, those people might vote then end up never following through on their half of the commitment.

Re: Tax the Land

#313

Post by zdragnar »

barry-cotter wrote: post #282
charlescooper wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

President is a federal election, run by the individual states. Congressional members are likewise state run elections, but only affect the members assigned by each state. It's a nonsensical comparison.

Re: Tax the Land

#314

Post by thematrixturtle »

eric4smith wrote: post #193
rnk wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want you to have to leave your land or be forced to sell it. But you should be paying taxes based on the actual value of it. Not on what it was 30 years ago when someone built it. California's proposition 13 is hiding actual values of many wealthy people's homes from the tax man; being able to transfer them without triggering new valuations used in taxes is a key problem.

Are you even listening to yourself? Of course I would be forced to sell it because the taxes would be too high. That's the whole point. Because of tax policy I would be forced to sell the land that I want to keep and sell later for appreciation value. Sometimes we forget that this is a capitalist free market country. I'm free to do what I want with my own land and my own capital. Sometimes it is not optimal, but if y…

> I would be forced to sell the land that I want to keep and sell later for appreciation value.

This is the literal point of the LVT: to make it more expensive to hold land unused for speculative purposes, and thus incentivize doing something productive with it instead.

Re: Tax the Land

#315

Post by int_19h »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #111
giantg2 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you accept this to be true and good oh, then it makes perfect sense." One can accept that the government owns the land while simultaneously believing that the government can abuse that power, just like a bad landlord can.

I don't disagree, But I do think the idea that the government, not individuals, is the ultimate owner of the land is a fundamental assumption of LVT. Not all people believe this.

The fundamental assumption of LVT is that society should be the owner of the land - i.e. that the land is commons. Government can be a manager of that land, but it only has such powers because the shareholders (everyone) vest that power in it.

The basis for this assertion is that land supply is fundamentally very scarce, so this is zero-sum game. If some have too much, others have little, and the former can extract substantial economic rent from the latter.

Re: Tax the Land

#316

Post by dropit_sphere »

murphyslab wrote: post #307

> A land tax can’t disincentivize anything — land will continue to exist regardless of any taxation scheme. It could and would disincetivize keeping lands in their natural state, since one is compelled to build in order to have the land not be a financial burden. Unless there is some kind of exclusion for that, it could result in sprawl.

Economically advantageous sprawl, though---or it would have to be, to meet the owner's goals of not being a financial burden.

I think the idea is that in that situation the owner sells, though.

Re: Tax the Land

#317

Post by zdragnar »

bradknowles wrote: post #298
formerkrogemp wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong choices are still wrong. I'd like to move into a house with my wife, but at this rate we'll be saving for a decade to get there. With climate change we have no idea how the real estate market will be at 1.5 degrees warming.

NIMBYism is a thing. But the flip side of that coin is local authorities that have zoning laws that allow the big and powerful builders to build pretty much whatever they want, wherever they want. Which always turns out to be high-rise condos for multi-millionaires and billionaires, most of whom have them as investment properties and don't actually live there. You see that here in Austin, all along the river, especia…

Don't worry, you see the same thing in ultra liberal areas as well. All the plans for "improvement" turn into gentrification that pushes out the current residents, with a tiny allotment of subsidized units that current residents don't qualify for either.

Re: Tax the Land

#318

Post by int_19h »

uoaei wrote: post #134
dismalpedigree wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The masses are asses. We shouldn’t just do things because the most people want it. Thats called tyranny by the majority.

I personally believe it'd be great if people like you could completely divest themselves from nation-states. You don't want to contribute to a commonwealth, that's fine, you can rough it over there and live a sad, cold, hungry existence. The vast majority of the comforts of modern life are afforded specifically and only because other people contribute to the common cause. You reject your responsibility to contribute…

Not OP, but speaking for myself: I want to contribute to a commonwealth, but any modern nation-state is a very perverse construct that doesn't really deserve that word. There's no commonwealth without a true democracy, and voting for people who supposedly represent you every few years isn't that.

Re: Tax the Land

#319

Post by AlotOfReading »

teakettle42 wrote: post #302
Manuel_D wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 negati…

> … and the people who can't even afford to move there in the first place. There’s no inalienable right to live in a popular place you cannot afford. Can you articulate an ethical argument for why it’s a problem that not everyone can afford to move to the most desirable cities?

Does this really need an argument? A primary mechanism for segregation and social inequity over the past century has been the exclusion of "undesirables" from spaces and the simultaneous, "coincidental" allocation of resources to those exclusionary spaces.

It's impossible to have an informed discussion on this topic in the US without acknowledging that basic reality.

Re: Tax the Land

#320

Post by closeparen »

anamax wrote: post #122

"It's the poor use of land right now that I believe is the main driver of poor affordability of housing." The assumption that everyone who wants to live in {place} should be able to do so is interesting. It's quite likely that {place} is a good place to live because there aren't too many people who live there. If that's true, we either come up with some way to limit the number of people or we destroy {place}. As to t…

Every square inch of America is governed according to the philosophy that what makes it valuable is having not too many people. Save for a few dozen blocks of half a dozen cities. And even then we’re suspicious. Our most iconic and beloved streetscapes are mostly non-conforming with postwar codes. But we obviously - obviously! - love these places. They are our travel destinations, our movie settings, our identity and sense of place. Superheroes defending the American way of life don’t defend Developer Model #4 on Pleasant View Court or the Denny’s in the strip mall, they defend fucking Manhattan. Yet our entire planning and zoning regime - including Manhattan’s own, to a surprising degree, treats it like like some kind of nuclear accident.

I would like proper urbanism to be be on a few hundred more blocks, or a few thousand blocks, maybe even a few hundred thousand blocks. Still nowhere near 10% of the developable or inhabited land area.

But no, not only does “not everyone want to live stacked on top of each other,” we must make sure walkable communities are kept so rare that one of those little hell boxes “nobody wants” costs $3 million. Every single unit permitted is its own little bloodbath, because no place, not even the heart of a city, is allowed to grow as a city anymore. All sprawl, all the time, exclusively.

Post reply on HN