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

411–420 of 613 posts

Re: Tax the Land

#411

Post by valenterry »

djokkataja wrote: post #406
valenterry wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All you say is interesting and probably true, but you did not address OP's specific point at all.

The OP's specific point was based on a misunderstanding: that being unable to pay the land value tax would mean they would have to move to a different city because the cost of living in their original city would be too high. This might be a reasonable concern during a transition to a land value tax system, but once the land value tax has been in place long enough to see more efficient use of land actually happening,…

> because the cost of living in their original city would be too high

No! That's not what OP said. He talked about the problem of _a change_ in the height of the tax on the same land over time and this making it become too expensive.

That's not the same thing, because while the land tax would not cause such a problem (as you correctly said) but rather improve the situation due to more efficient use, the problem of _change_ stays.

Re: Tax the Land

#412

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

This is a worthy idea, although hardly groundbreaking.

Over a hundred years ago[1] economist Henry George was advocating for a “single tax” on economic rents, from land to intellectual property. The idea being that those who own monopolistic rent extractors (only the owners of the land can use it to make money, etc) tend to be wealthier, and taxes on economic activity like income and sales tend to fall disproportionately on the poor.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George

Re: Tax the Land

#413

Post by valenterry »

Game_Ender wrote: post #407
valenterry wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All you say is interesting and probably true, but you did not address OP's specific point at all.

The answer is that he could still afford to live there just no longer as an owner of that much land. In a city with a land value tax the rental or condo market would be much more dynamic so he would be able to find and affordable option their.

I don't think that's how it works. Maybe in the beginning that's true, but once things have settled, an increase in land tax also means an increase of rents. Even though for high buildings this increase is split, it still has an effect. And, if the building is really tall and the tax split across many parties, it also means that the tax will be very high, since you wouldn't build such a tall building on land that isn't very valuable.

In the end the OP has a point. And even if this point alone is certainly not major and would ve a reason to drop the concept of a land tax, it's also relevant enough to warrant a serious discussion about it imho.

Re: Tax the Land

#414

Post by lcpriest »

noahtallen wrote: post #185
Hammershaft wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also Milton Friedman! Important qualification to recognize this is not just a leftist policy.

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.

Exactly. All it's saying is that you can do whatever you want with your land, as long as you can afford to.

It forces landowners to account for the opportunity costs they impose on society by not utilizing the land optimally, even if (and especially if) those costs change over time.

Re: Tax the Land

#415

Post by ubercow13 »

alex_sf wrote: post #382
geocar wrote: post #369

Earlier 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.

> This is ignoring the point: positive rights should not exist

I’m confused by this statement. You don’t have an inalienable right to keep the area around your home exactly how you want it either. That’s a positive right and requires taking the rights of others, for example by enforcement of zoning laws that affect land owned by other people.

Re: Tax the Land

#416

Post by xpe »

habosa wrote: post #294
woojoo666 wrote: post #283

The Vox article says > The LVT also has an appealing underlying moral framework: The luck to own a piece of land that happens to appreciate — say, you bought a house in San Francisco before the tech boom — should not come with it the ability to extract rents without providing value. It seems a bit presumptious to say it is all luck - that somebody couldn't have predicted that the land would appreciate and thus bought…

Successful speculation is still luck. The point is that the person who purchased the land may have gained value far in excess of the improvements they made or the capital they provided. Under a LVT the community and government which gave the land value will capture that.

Please define speculation. Do you define it as pure luck? If so, your claim is tautological.

Re: Tax the Land

#417

Post by xpe »

habosa wrote: post #294
woojoo666 wrote: post #283

The Vox article says > The LVT also has an appealing underlying moral framework: The luck to own a piece of land that happens to appreciate — say, you bought a house in San Francisco before the tech boom — should not come with it the ability to extract rents without providing value. It seems a bit presumptious to say it is all luck - that somebody couldn't have predicted that the land would appreciate and thus bought…

Successful speculation is still luck. The point is that the person who purchased the land may have gained value far in excess of the improvements they made or the capital they provided. Under a LVT the community and government which gave the land value will capture that.

Choosing how to spend money is a mixture of many things including desires, needs, awareness, understanding, planning, and luck.

Re: Tax the Land

#418

Post by xpe »

woojoo666 wrote: post #283

The Vox article says > The LVT also has an appealing underlying moral framework: The luck to own a piece of land that happens to appreciate — say, you bought a house in San Francisco before the tech boom — should not come with it the ability to extract rents without providing value. It seems a bit presumptious to say it is all luck - that somebody couldn't have predicted that the land would appreciate and thus bought…

I agree.

That said, there is a remaining question: should (by which I mean: is it socially desirable) the component of randomness leading to land value appreciation also multiply * the value of improvements?

* I wrote 'multiply' without evidence, largely based on an educated guess. To what degree is this a reasonable claim?

Re: Tax the Land

#419

Post by frisia »

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?

> There’s no inalienable right to live in a popular place you cannot afford.

I agree, that's why single family households should have a higher property tax and high density a lower one. Currently single family households are subsidized.[1]

[1]: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/4/16/when-apartment...

Re: Tax the Land

#420

Post by bretthoerner »

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…

What real estate do you think those people would buy if the condos weren't build?
Post reply on HN