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

321–330 of 613 posts

Re: Tax the Land

#321

Post by teakettle42 »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #319
teakettle42 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> … 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.

Do you believe everyone has a right to housing in any place they might desire to live?

Re: Tax the Land

#322

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

Re: Tax the Land

#323

Post by closeparen »

eric4smith wrote: post #163

Vox needs a spanking. (As always). Just imagine. I have some land. Lots of people would love to buy it it for different things. But for now, I just want to hang onto it until I'm ready to use it. And my house is sitting right next to it. Yeah, nimby blah, blah blah. But it's my house and my backyard and my land so... I have to be forced to sell it? Brah. Just another socialist redistribution scheme.

If you want to go property rights absolutism that’s fine, as long as on my land I can build a five story condo building.

I think the provocative thing about Georgism in the present context is, while NIMBYs have gotten a lot of mileage out of a theory of community interest in keeping uses low-intensity that supersedes the rights of owners, we can actually articulate the same kind of community interest in making those uses intense and productive. A vacant lot is anathema to a vibrant block in the same way that an industrial plant is anathema to a residential neighborhood.

It would be fine from my perspective if those two simply cancelled out and we reverted to more individual autonomy.

Re: Tax the Land

#324

Post by AlotOfReading »

teakettle42 wrote: post #321
AlotOfReading wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you believe everyone has a right to housing in any place they might desire to live?

No, of course not. The point is that there's a more nuanced discussion to be had here about what these limits and rights ought to be.

Re: Tax the Land

#325

Post by jldugger »

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…

> If the latter, renters get the same one vote per person as everybody else.

Well, that's not quite true -- there's many (highly paid) immigrants living in my building. None of them can vote on housing policy even though it directly affects their lives.

Re: Tax the Land

#326

Post by gorgoiler »

Massive tax hikes please, for houses owned by people who don’t live there. Landlordism is out of control.

Land value tax doesnt feel like a fair solution. The value of your land is what you sell it for, not what a realtor guesses it is worth.

If you “buy a house in San Francisco before the tech boom” and never sell it, you shouldn’t have to pay some extra sour-grapes tax because everyone else is jealous of the perceived value of your land. How do they know you don’t have dry rot / radon / ghosts? Do you have to allow home inspections to “value” your property?

Conversely, if you cash out at 20x the value you paid then we already have a tax for that: Capital Gains.

All bets are off if you own land that isn’t the place where you live. If you own more than one home, neither is your permanent home, so enjoy being taxed on both.

Re: Tax the Land

#327

Post by jjav »

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…

> > Local governments [...] are entirely captured by homeowners.

> I'm not fully clear on this statement.

Me neither. It is a very often repeated sentiment and I've asked in various threads, but there has never been an explanation how homeowners supposedly have any kind of influence over local government, beyond the single vote everyone gets.

For the record, as a homeowner, I've never had any access to any local (or non-local) government representative. They don't ask what I think, they certainly don't seem to care what I think. I get one vote in the elections, but so does everyone in the county.

Re: Tax the Land

#328

Post by teakettle42 »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #324
teakettle42 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe everyone has a right to housing in any place they might desire to live?

No, of course not. The point is that there's a more nuanced discussion to be had here about what these limits and rights ought to be.

Doesn’t that answer my question, then?

There’s nothing inherently wrong if not everyone can afford to live in desirable cities.

Re: Tax the Land

#329

Post by apendleton »

zdragnar wrote: post #317
bradknowles wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not doing the development doesn't prevent the gentrification, though. It's not like desirable places to live suddenly become not-desirable because there's not enough housing to go around. The rich people just outcompete the current residents for the existing housing stock. Unless housing supply actually keeps up with demand, someone's going to get squeezed out, and it'll almost invariably be whoever has the least money.

Re: Tax the Land

#330

Post by jjav »

jldugger wrote: post #325
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…

> If the latter, renters get the same one vote per person as everybody else. Well, that's not quite true -- there's many (highly paid) immigrants living in my building. None of them can vote on housing policy even though it directly affects their lives.

> > If the latter, renters get the same one vote per person as everybody else.

> Well, that's not quite true -- there's many (highly paid) immigrants living in my building.

But the variable there is immigration status, not homeownership status.

Non-citizen immigrants who are homeowners don't get a vote either.

Post reply on HN