76% of voters own land, so this idea is dead on arrival.
Tax the Land
381–390 of 613 posts
Re: Tax the Land
#382Earlier 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?
> There’s no inalienable right to live in a popular place you cannot afford. There's no right to anything that people don't stand together to say they have a right to. > Can you articulate an ethical argument for why it’s a problem that not everyone can afford to move to the most desirable cities? People shouldn't have to commute for hours so other people can live there because that impacts their health and opportuni…
> There's no right to anything that people don't stand together to say they have a right to.
This is ignoring the point: positive rights should not exist. They require taking rights from others, through violence, to enforce.
> People shouldn't have to commute for hours so other people can live there because that impacts their health and opportunities for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
Ok. Then don't.
Re: Tax the Land
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a place where there should be more homes if you were looking at it from a regional perspective aka, somebody else deciding that there should be more homes. I think that's the wrong perspective to take. I don't want an authority to decide this - the locals should make their own choices (right or wrong).
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.
> but at this rate we'll be saving for a decade to get there.
That's normal. Median first-time homebuyer is 34, and that's for a starter house, which most people refuse to do nowadays.
Re: Tax the Land
#384Local 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…
> renters get the same one vote per person as everybody else It's not just directly voting for a city councilor, planning board member, etc. that counts. Showing up to public meetings to show support or disagreement with something can do much to pressure those elected officials. But renters are going to have a much more difficult time showing solidarity for pro-development action, not only because of the difference i…
> Renters, on the other hand, have an asymmetrically difficult battle: pro-development individuals need to show up to all the proposed-development meetings, not just one for a particular street or block, if they want to expand housing.
It's not homeowners vs renters, it's homeowners vs property developers. Property developers who, I can assure you, are perfectly capable of sticking up for themselves.
> Homeowners are probably much more strongly driven to show up because the focus is on what they lose. Character of neighborhood, traffic, safety, noise, etc. and the threat against the status quo seems more likely to trigger that visceral defense mechanism.
Are these.. bad reasons to be opposed to development?
> Homeowners are well-defined and known individuals. They already exist, and their turf is already developed. Renters, on the other hand, are an abstract group of people who may or may not even move in, should something be built.
This is all the more reason to listen to homeowners vs renters.
> There's strong stigma against renters, to the point of being demeaning and tribal. A local council near me voiced their opposition to building more affordable developments, and the chairman said he was concerned about "derelicts" (exact word) moving in to the neighborhood and said if they built more affordable units, you'd see a rise in street drug vendors, threatening the local children.
Sleight of hand there. Renting != affordable housing. To be blunt, although maybe not as much as that councilman: poor people commit more street and petty crime. This is inarguable. Most people commit crimes near where they live. Also inarguable. He's not wrong.
Re: Tax the Land
#385Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many places make voting difficult. I recognize this, and agree that it is terrible. Voting should be as easy and widespread as possible. There comes a point on the effort scale, however, below which not voting means you just don't give a damn. Voting in my city involves thirty seconds on a website to request a ballot and then dropping your envelope in the mail. If you don't care that much, or have managed to screw yo…
It's more complicated than this. Most working class people aren't even exposed to local politics. I guarantee you that the majority of working class people don't even know how or where to vote in local elections. Democracy sounds egalitarian in principle, but in reality, economics on the ground insulates a large number of people from the power process. I get what you are saying about not wanting these clueless people…
> Democracy sounds egalitarian in principle, but in reality
And your proposed alternative is?
Re: Tax the Land
#386"That crisis is caused, in part, by the failure to appropriately use valuable in-demand land for its best purpose. "
So this is all based on the assumption that the government knows what the best use of your land is.
Re: Tax the Land
#387Earlier 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…
You seem to be overlooking that in that scenario, your land has appreciated considerably. If you sell, you'll net a gain; if you don't want to sell despite the gain, you can borrow against the property to pay the tax.
Here's the thing to understand: anyone buying property now in a popular area, where prices have been increasing rapidly for the last two or three decades, is effectively paying an LVT. The thing is, they're not paying it to the locality, which could use it for infrastructure and services; they're paying it to the previous owner, because the higher purchase price means a higher mortgage payment. That's redistribution too.
Re: Tax the Land
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you buy property in the second city, then as values rise, yes your taxes will go up but so will the value of your property. Worst case, you have to take out a home equity loan to pay the taxes, but you'll probably still come out ahead. I've long advocated for an arrangement whereby if the value of a property increases by more than some small amount, say 2%, the excess wouldn't come due until the property was sold;…
> If you buy property in the second city, then as values rise, yes your taxes will go up but so will the value of your property. Worst case, you have to take out a home equity loan to pay the taxes, but you'll probably still come out ahead. Wouldn't this rise in your property's value only matter when you sell? Home equity loans aren't a thing in France as far as I know, so maybe I'm completely off here, but wouldn't…
You don't need a house after you die. So, you borrow money against the increase in value of the house. The OP is saying that when the estate (wealth of dead person) is concluded the balance will be such that loans against the property (aka 'equity release') will ask be paid easily by the sale of the property. Ergo, no loss to the hypothetical improver of the locality.
I'd say also, anyone who is capable of producing all those improvements should be able to make a good living, and their wage should improve with the monetary value of land in the area. Meaning the land tax shouldn't, on average, be harmful.
Re: Tax the Land
#389Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There’s no inalienable right to live in a popular place you cannot afford. There's no right to anything that people don't stand together to say they have a right to. > Can you articulate an ethical argument for why it’s a problem that not everyone can afford to move to the most desirable cities? People shouldn't have to commute for hours so other people can live there because that impacts their health and opportuni…
> There's no right to anything that people don't stand together to say they have a right to. This is ignoring the point: positive rights should not exist. They require taking rights from others, through violence, to enforce. > People shouldn't have to commute for hours so other people can live there because that impacts their health and opportunities for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness Ok. Then don't.
Okay then just die?
I mean, it's an option, but a just society could easily do better.
The majority are screwed over by an ultra-rich minority, personally I think that deserves addressing.
Positive rights for all do not require violence provided those who benefit from others not having simple rights will give up their excess for the greater good. The demos may need to use violence, but that's only because those who, by no greater virtue, have acquired wealth refuse to act justly and recognise the equal dignity of man.
Re: Tax the Land
#390Earlier 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?
There's no inalienable right to not be cripplingly impoverished. But any ethical countries would try to ameliorate that condition. Is it ethical for a select few to grow enormously wealthy by driving up the cost of living for the many by deliberately causing a shortage of a basic need? People need jobs to live. They also need a roof over their heads. The jobs are becoming increasingly concentrated in a few metro area…
> The jobs are becoming increasingly concentrated in a few metro areas, but the home-owning class constrains the supply of housing and drives up the price of their own assets. Disincentivizing this sort of rent seeking behavior is precisely the kind of thing property taxes accomplish.
There are two solutions to that problem. Governments could either make it easier to rent in the increasingly concentrated metro areas, or reverse the trend of increasingly concentrated metro areas.
During Covid there were quite a few government created incentives for remote work. If government started to use tax law to further incentivize remote home, maybe we can start to cut out all those officer workers from needing to live in metro areas, only keeping people tied to cities who need to physically be in the city.