Tax the Land • Hacker News Board

Re: Tax the Land

#491

Post by diebeforei485 » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 8:21 PM UTC

cascom wrote: post #281

diebeforei485 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We already see standard property tax forcing the elderly out of their homes in many areas. It's reasonable to offer options to low-income retirees, for example allowing them to defer property tax payments until death. Texas does this, it works alright. Note that a single family dewlling on .75 acres likely costs the government a lot of money to provide services (plumbing, sewer, electric etc) and is likely already…

What are you talking about? The city/county charges for those services - us municipalities are going broke for two simple reasons 1) public pensions 2) mismanagement

They don't charge you the full cost of providing those services.

There is a whole playlist about this: https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0

Re: Tax the Land

#492

Post by diebeforei485 » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 8:23 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #144

diebeforei485 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We already see standard property tax forcing the elderly out of their homes in many areas. It's reasonable to offer options to low-income retirees, for example allowing them to defer property tax payments until death. Texas does this, it works alright. Note that a single family dewlling on .75 acres likely costs the government a lot of money to provide services (plumbing, sewer, electric etc) and is likely already…

I think that depends. Many places have private companies providing those services. The hookup costs are usually high. Then they make money on the bills too. It can be 50+ years before it needs to be replaced and another large fee charged. Also, many places could have well and septic, so that's all private costs. Off grid solar is also being a (small) option, where allowed.

Most suburbs were built around 50 years ago, and the bills are coming due.

Re: Tax the Land

#493

Post by gizmo686 » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 8:27 PM UTC

drekk wrote: post #489

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...

Assuming by "we" you mean the United States, then we only ever compensated slaveowners in DC [0]. Notably, abolishing slavery in DC did not require going through a costly civil war as it did in (almost) all of the slave states.

Granted, it is hard to decide how to read this history. Specifically, the civil war did not start because the federal government tried freeing slaves; but because the eventual confederacy states feared it would. Abolition wouldn't become union policy until well into the civil war (largely due to the sunk cost of fighting the far). And, the 4 union slave states would eventually abolish slavery as well.

Still, given how costly the civil war was (both in terms of money, lives, and politics), it is worth considering the counterfactual where did a compensated abolition, which seems to have worked out better when it was attempted.

[0] The act to search for is District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act

Re: Tax the Land

#494

Post by imtringued » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 8:34 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #399

CryptoPunk wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I am rather skeptic of land value taxes, but I would like to hear your view of why land value tax is better than simply raising the tax on rent and property sales. The article goes into the advantages of a land value tax over other types of tax, including a property tax: The big question land value taxes help answer is: How can a government raise funds without distorting choices and possibly leaving people worse of…

> Those people should be selling their land. We should not have a scarce natural resource sitting idle or under-utilized. From the article as well: If we have that attitude to people owning things, then the first thing should be wealth tax on jewelry, cars, boats, and other luxury items which if you can't afford to pay the tax then you should be forced to sell it. I remember how popular that concept where here in EU…

>If we have that attitude to people owning things, then the first thing should be wealth tax on jewelry, cars, boats, and other luxury items which if you can't afford to pay the tax then you should be forced to sell it.

That actually makes sense if you want to avoid price gouging and scalping over the short term.

If you tax wealth then people will try to reduce the amount of wealth they have which is undesirable over the long term. If you tax land, people will reduce the amount of land they use, which is exactly what you want in an urban environment.

Re: Tax the Land

#495

Post by imtringued » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 8:35 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #378

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…

I am rather skeptic of land value taxes, but I would like to hear your view of why land value tax is better than simply raising the tax on rent and property sales. The main argument that I see against land value taxes is that land doesn't generate any income by itself, which forces people to pay money in situation where they might not have any income to do so. One could bypass this problem by putting in limitations,…

If you tax rent, you are taxing the building which is not the point of a land value tax.

Re: Tax the Land

#496

Post by cuteboy19 » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 8:44 PM UTC

mountainriver wrote: post #445

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…

Yeah this is exactly right. In my hometown, we have a beautiful view, but people are always pushing for taller more dense housing, because they say it’s unaffordable. However if they win they will destroy what makes this place great in the first place. There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep a town smaller and more simple. If the residents were there first and exerted their way into the community they have that r…

The counter argument is simple. The right to property is inalienable and absolute. If your neighbours can dictate what you can and cannot build on your own land can you even say that you really own it? The idea that a small cartel of homeowners can just artificially lower supply is anti freedom and anti free market.

Re: Tax the Land

#497

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 8:46 PM UTC

cuteboy19 wrote: post #496

mountainriver wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah this is exactly right. In my hometown, we have a beautiful view, but people are always pushing for taller more dense housing, because they say it’s unaffordable. However if they win they will destroy what makes this place great in the first place. There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep a town smaller and more simple. If the residents were there first and exerted their way into the community they have that r…

The counter argument is simple. The right to property is inalienable and absolute. If your neighbours can dictate what you can and cannot build on your own land can you even say that you really own it? The idea that a small cartel of homeowners can just artificially lower supply is anti freedom and anti free market.

It's not absolute at all, it depends entirely on the consent of your neighbors.

That's true both in a world of laws and in a world of power.

Re: Tax the Land

#498

Post by cuteboy19 » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 8:46 PM UTC

teakettle42 wrote: post #488

Manuel_D wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. T…

You can do whatever you want with your own home. But when you start criminalizing the victimless act of building a bigger house, that is where a line is crossed.

Re: Tax the Land

#499

Post by cuteboy19 » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 8:49 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #497

cuteboy19 wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counter argument is simple. The right to property is inalienable and absolute. If your neighbours can dictate what you can and cannot build on your own land can you even say that you really own it? The idea that a small cartel of homeowners can just artificially lower supply is anti freedom and anti free market.

It's not absolute at all, it depends entirely on the consent of your neighbors. That's true both in a world of laws and in a world of power.

Then such "neighbours" are welcome to vacate their houses and move to a communist country of their liking, which has no respect for private property. I am sure they will find a lot of commonality in values. Let everyone else enjoy freedom

Re: Tax the Land

#500

Post by imtringued » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 8:50 PM UTC

neilwilson wrote: post #429

belorn wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am rather skeptic of land value taxes, but I would like to hear your view of why land value tax is better than simply raising the tax on rent and property sales. The main argument that I see against land value taxes is that land doesn't generate any income by itself, which forces people to pay money in situation where they might not have any income to do so. One could bypass this problem by putting in limitations,…

Land value taxes fail on the basics. Tax has nothing to do with raising money. It’s about releasing real resources for the public good - largely people to provide public services. Ideally the tax needs to be incident on the private sector entities that would otherwise hire the people the public sector needs to hire instead - military, judiciary, police, healthcare, education, etc. Government has no need of land, ther…

Income taxes fail on the basics.

Income tax has nothing to do with raising money. It’s about releasing real resources for the public good - largely people to provide public services. Ideally the tax needs to be incident on the private sector entities that would otherwise hire the people the public sector needs to hire instead - military, judiciary, police, healthcare, education, etc.

Government has no need of private income, therefore it makes no sense to tax it. Expecting the incidence to end up in the correct place requires a faith in fungibility that just isn’t borne out in practice.

When the government uses income taxes to fund public infrastructure like a subway, it improves the land that is incident to that subway which raises the value of that land. The government created a lot of private value that could be taxed to pay for the infrastructure it built. As it stands right now, the government just takes your income with no incentive to actually deliver as it does not benefit directly from its own investments. This allows corruption to creep in as politicians would rather fund massive boondoggles that line up their pockets rather than small incremental improvements that increase government revenue in proportion to how much value it provides.

This scene gets the point across very clearly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL3n59wC8kk&t=1803s

The government invests in the commons. Access to the commons (proximity to infrastructure) is owned by private individuals who benefit from the investment. The government does not benefit from the investment it made. It's effectively running a charity for a handful of people.