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

341–350 of 613 posts

Re: Tax the Land

#341

Post by hetspookjee »

teakettle42 wrote: post #328
AlotOfReading wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the one you’re responding to seems to be in favour of a more nuanced view, rather where I read your argument as absolutes (everyone everywhere). So to some extend you both seem in agreement though the difference is the nuance.

Re: Tax the Land

#342

Post by gameman144 »

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.

I think the question is more oriented around voting for the representation allotted to other states, rather than voting for candidates that will serve at the same level.

For instance, Presidents, Senators, and Representatives are all Federal positions. The states (or for President, the state's electors) get to pick their own representatives, though, and it would be odd for one state to elect another state's representatives to Federal office (e.g. a Massachusetts vote being counted in the Connecticut US Senate election.)

Likewise, all counties in a state vote in State elections, but don't vote in each others' county elections. This goes down the line to cities within counties, districts within cities, etc.

Not that I disagree with your point (it's totally valid to point out that elections from multiple areas can all serve in one body), but I think the question was more about citizens from outside a region voting for policies/representatives within that region.

Re: Tax the Land

#343

Post by [deleted] »

teakettle42 wrote: post #328
AlotOfReading wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Tax the Land

#344

Post by teakettle42 »

d4mi3n wrote: post #339
AlotOfReading wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. This comes off as a bad faith counter-argument. AlotOfReading has explicitly stated he believes there exist nuances of substance to this discussion. This response completely ignores his statements in favor of what may be a false dichotomy. teakettle42: How could one address AlotOfReading's c…

> Low income housing

This is just a subsidy for employers; they can pay a less-than-living wage, keep the profits, and rely on tax-payer-subsidized housing programs to close the gap.

> zoning changes

This is a give-away to developers.

Increases the entry costs for development beyond what anyone but huge real-estate investment firms can afford. They build out rental units, grow the permanent rental class, and extract rent from the population in perpetuity.

> tax incentives geared towards improving the socioeconomic diversity of an area

Why is socioeconomic diversity in coveted cities a desirable outcome, and specifically, why is it something the government should attempt to engineer using our tax dollars?

Re: Tax the Land

#345

Post by tome »

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…

> Please, show me how an appropriately set income tax disincentivizes work.

Here's a proof that income tax disincentivizes work:

Would you work an extra hour a week if it were paid at 1000x your normal rate? I confidently assert that you would.

Would you work it for 100x your normal rate? Almost certainly.

10x? Probably.

0.5x? Probably not.

0.01? Almost certainly not!

So, earning more or less than some threshold hourly amount incentivizes or disincentivizes that hour to be worked. This is exactly the effect of income taxation.

Now, I sympathise with people who have worked hard, paid tax on income and bought property. They don't want to, in addition, be charged to own that property. I myself am in the same boat.

But I also sympathise with people who have studied hard and learned skills. They don't want to, in addition, be charged to use those skills!

The only argument I can see for income tax over property tax is "I expected the former but not the latter, so you've violated my expectations". I don't find that argument very convincing.

Re: Tax the Land

#346

Post by apendleton »

mdorazio wrote: post #9

Not really stated in the article are three caveats: 1) Zoning laws have to change as well to actually allow development of the land being taxed toward more productive ends. 2) The land tax amount needs to be high enough that the pain of the tax effectively forces owners to improve what's on the land. A homeowner sitting on a million dollar piece of property in California taxed at ~1% is still unlikely to build an apa…

> 1) Zoning laws have to change as well to actually allow development of the land being taxed toward more productive ends.

This is addressed to some extent, with the argument that zoning reforms are more practical because existing property owners are incentivized to support rather than fight zoning updates that allow more development, so they can fully maximize the ratio of their revenue against the tax. (“It turns NIMBYs into YIMBYs,” she quotes a researcher as saying.)

Re: Tax the Land

#347

Post by jjav »

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…

> The whole point of the land value tax is to tax land to encourage higher density and higher cost use.

This is why I disagree so strongly with the idea. Do I want to live in a society where every square meter of land is forced to be used for the highest possible ROI? No, absolutely not. There is already far too much drive to maximize profit on everything. We need less of that, not more.

Just a small sampling of land uses which are economically suboptimal: parks, playgrounds, bike trails, dog parks, community sport areas, nature conservation areas/greenbelts. And so many more.

I want to live in a town which has a lot more of all of the above, not less.

If the only thing that mattered was maximizing profit per square foot, it would be optimal to raze all the above and build them up with high-density housing towers.

Re: Tax the Land

#348

Post by tome »

chii wrote: post #270
nwah1 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The colloquial use of the term 'landlord' equivocates between the role of property manager and the role of titleholder. The latter is the only one that really deserves the feudal term. Property managers do indeed earn their living. They are often just contracted by titleholders. Because the titleholder is not obligated to do anything at all. Their role is to own, not to do. If the same person serves both roles then t…

if you're against title-holding, you are really against the idea of ownership, and capital. > Because the titleholder is not obligated to do anything at all. Their role is to own, not to do. their role is to provide capital to purchase the title. And in the future, some other capital holder will buy the title off you. This whole process is what enables investment in the land in the first place. It's the same idea as…

> if you're against title-holding, you are really against the idea of ownership, and capital.

Is anyone in this discussion against title-holding per se? Not that I can see. The point is that title-holding should come with some responsibilities, specifically to pay a tax proportional to the value of the title. For comparison, someone is not necessarily against work because they believes that earning income comes with responsibility to pay taxes proportional to that income.

Re: Tax the Land

#349

Post by apendleton »

tdehnel wrote: post #241
noahtallen wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really does seem like an extremely capitalist concept! The idea is to force the market to compete much more thoroughly. Not sure why folks are saying it’s a “leftist redistribution ploy,” when the main benefit is to force owners to make a profit on their land or sell.

What if they don’t want to do that with their land?

... sucks to be them? No tax scheme is truly neutral, and any tax scheme is going to favor certain behaviors and disfavor others. If the behavior you wanted to undertake isn't the one a given tax system incentivizes, that's probably unpleasant, but somebody had to get the short straw, and as a society we may as well pick a short-straw-holder in such a way that broadly pro-social outcomes are maximized, like increasing the likelihood that more people have places to live.

Re: Tax the Land

#350

Post by [deleted] »

gameman144 wrote: post #342
barry-cotter wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think the question is more oriented around voting for the representation allotted to other states, rather than voting for candidates that will serve at the same level. For instance, Presidents, Senators, and Representatives are all Federal positions. The states (or for President, the state's electors) get to pick their own representatives, though, and it would be odd for one state to elect another state's represent…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN