Tax the Land • Hacker News Board

Re: Tax the Land

#481

Post by devilbunny » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 7:06 PM UTC

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #464

gameman144 wrote: post #366

I totally get the appeal of land taxes and restriction of land-use regulation at the local level, and by and large they seem like a reasonable approach to poor resource allocation and unequal ownership opportunities. One thing I've not seen addressed, though, is the apparent disincentive to improve communities in meaningful ways. For instance, say I live in a very expensive city and I can no longer afford the land ta…

It seems like you overlooked the obvious -- when your LVT went up, your land went up in value. You sold your land and moved to some other, cheaper, place and thus realized a profit from that increase in value. If, in the other place, you make things better and the land goes up in value so much that you can no longer afford the LVT, then you can sell your land and realize, again, a significant profit. These profits ar…

So what about capital gains/income tax? AIUI - and I have not really studied LVT's closely, but since they have been bandied about quite a bit, I know only enough to be dangerous - LVT's are supposed to pretty much eliminate other taxes, correct? If your property doubles in value, and you sell to get out from under the tax, but you lose 25-40% of that increase to income tax, you just took a big hit.

Or am I completely off-base here?

Re: Tax the Land

#482

Post by murphyslab » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 7:13 PM UTC

dropit_sphere wrote: post #316

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.

Sprawl isn't economically advantageous to cities, since low-density sprawl does not generate sufficient funds to cover the associated infrastructure. High-density urban cores end up subsidizing those infrastructure costs. [0] The end result is what Strong Towns refers to as the "Growth Ponzi Scheme". [1]

[0] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/8/4/the-question-ev...

[1] https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme

Re: Tax the Land

#483

Post by Manuel_D » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 7:16 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #390

Manuel_D wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Reversing the trend of jobs concentrating in metro areas is not exactly feasible. How would this be done?

Prohibiting companies from hiring more than X employees? What keeps them from just setting up another company and hiring them as consultants?

Or is there going to be a fixed cap on the number of people who are permitted to be employed? If someone moves to the city, and it's already at it's max number of workers they're just prohibited from working?

Jobs becoming concentrated in certain hubs is natural emergent phenomenon. You're not going to legislate your way out of it, at least not without resorting to oppressive systems like hokou.

Re: Tax the Land

#484

Post by throwaway14356 » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 7:16 PM UTC

the fun of land tax imho is that the country belongs to everyone

Re: Tax the Land

#485

Post by Manuel_D » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 7:18 PM UTC

teakettle42 wrote: post #337

Manuel_D wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> deliberately causing a shortage of a basic need There’s no housing shortage. There’s a limited supply in highly desirable locations because they’re highly desirable. People can and do live elsewhere, working local jobs or commuting. > The jobs are becoming increasingly concentrated in a few metro areas That’s just one of many problems of scale; the solution is not to keep scaling up. > … the home-owning class const…

> There’s a limited supply in highly desirable locations because they’re highly desirable.

That's literally what a shortage is. This is like saying, "there's no shortage of chips, people just need to buy less electronics."

> Nobody is obligated to destroy their own community to accommodate the interests of rent-seeking land developers and people who don’t live there.

The real rent-seeking behavior is curbing the supply of housing to drive up one's property values. "Rent-seeking behavior" is not very aptly named. A developer that builds a high rise apartment that rents to dozens of households is improving the use of land and expanding housing availability. A homeowner that keeps shooting down development proposals is not improving housing availability. The latter is the real rent-seeking behavior.

Re: Tax the Land

#486

Post by Manuel_D » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 7:27 PM UTC

alex_sf wrote: post #476

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> Okay then just die? Or work near where you can afford to live? If there aren't jobs that support living there, live somewhere else? You're presenting an absurd dichotomy. > The majority are screwed over by an ultra-rich minority, personally I think that deserves addressing. No, they aren't. Wealth inequality is not a real problem. It's politicized jealousy. Wealth is not zero-sum, and someone having more than someo…

> Or work near where you can afford to live? If there aren't jobs that support living there, live somewhere else? You're presenting an absurd dichotomy.

And what happens when there's no jos where you live, and the only places where jobs exist have extreme housing shortages? You can spend hours commuting each day, but then you're probably burning just as much money through gas - not to mention destroying the environment.

Re: Tax the Land

#487

Post by solidsnack9000 » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 7:33 PM UTC

devilbunny wrote: post #481

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you overlooked the obvious -- when your LVT went up, your land went up in value. You sold your land and moved to some other, cheaper, place and thus realized a profit from that increase in value. If, in the other place, you make things better and the land goes up in value so much that you can no longer afford the LVT, then you can sell your land and realize, again, a significant profit. These profits ar…

So what about capital gains/income tax? AIUI - and I have not really studied LVT's closely, but since they have been bandied about quite a bit, I know only enough to be dangerous - LVT's are supposed to pretty much eliminate other taxes, correct? If your property doubles in value, and you sell to get out from under the tax, but you lose 25-40% of that increase to income tax, you just took a big hit. Or am I completel…

I don't think you're representing the situation fairly, because profiting 60% to 75% is definitely not a loss -- it's not taking a "big hit" -- and the problem there has nothing to do with LVTs, anyways.

If your property doubles in value in and you sell it and pay 25% to 40% of the increase:

    the gross profit is: 200 - 100 = 100
    the tax is: 25% to 40% of 100 which is 25 to 40
    the profit post tax is: 100 minus 25 to 40 or, in other words, 75 to 60

Re: Tax the Land

#488

Post by teakettle42 » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 7:37 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #485

teakettle42 wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> deliberately causing a shortage of a basic need There’s no housing shortage. There’s a limited supply in highly desirable locations because they’re highly desirable. People can and do live elsewhere, working local jobs or commuting. > The jobs are becoming increasingly concentrated in a few metro areas That’s just one of many problems of scale; the solution is not to keep scaling up. > … the home-owning class const…

> There’s a limited supply in highly desirable locations because they’re highly desirable. That's literally what a shortage is. This is like saying, "there's no shortage of chips, people just need to buy less electronics." > Nobody is obligated to destroy their own community to accommodate the interests of rent-seeking land developers and people who don’t live there. The real rent-seeking behavior is curbing the supp…

> That's literally what a shortage is. This is like saying, "there's no shortage of chips, people just need to buy less electronics."

Not being able to buy a $100k car doesn’t mean there’s a car shortage, and not being able to buy a home in Boulder doesn’t mean there’s a housing shortage.

There’s plenty of housing.

Folks aren’t homeless for lack of affordable housing.

> The latter is the real rent-seeking behavior.

The propaganda coup of real-estate investors is astounding.

They have people like you advocating for their ability to extract rent in perpetuity as if it was a moral imperative.

Meanwhile, you think the individuals that own a home and enjoy being a part of their community are the bad actors.

It’s truly amazing what they’ve managed to convince people like you of.

Re: Tax the Land

#489

Post by drekk » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 7:43 PM UTC

CryptoPunk wrote: post #212

I've long advocated a land value tax. I would suggest that any reform of this nature, that eliminates private capture of economic rent, accompany one-time compensation to the parties that lose that economic rent, so in this case, compensation to make up for the loss in property value that a LVT would incur. The same should apply to any other repeal of rent-seeking institutions: anti-labor-competitive laws privileging…

We did economically recompense some former slaveowners. Not the slaves or their descendants, of course.

https://today.uconn.edu/2021/03/there-was-a-time-reparations...

Re: Tax the Land

#490

Post by mikem170 » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 7:44 PM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #471

mikem170 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the way that Japan handles zoning. It's based on population densities. Localities can designate industrial and commercial areas, but can't deviate from federal guidelines to prevent growth. Instead of single family homes they allow triplexes where a percentage of space can be used for a low-impact business, like a barber shop or something. They have setbacks geared towards making sure that you don't build thre…

The interesting thing is that the value of a typical home in Tokyo decreases with time. This idea would be terrifying for most of the US homeowners.

Agreed. It's crazy that we got into this spot where places people live are also expected to be an investment that forever out-paces inflation. It's not sustainable.