Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 164 posts

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#51

Post by pjc50 »

AlexandrB wrote: post #19
303uru wrote: post #10

I'm a huge proponent of land tax. Here's why I think it's worth considering: 1. Economic Efficiency: Unlike income or consumption taxes, an LVT is non-distortionary. It doesn't discourage productive activities like work, saving, or investment. Land is a fixed resource; its supply doesn't change with price or tax fluctuations. Therefore, an LVT wouldn't distort market incentives, unlike other taxes. By shifting the ta…

> Sustainable Land Use Hmmm, I don't get this point. If the incentive is to sell of develop your land what happens to "fallow" land that serves as a habitat for plants or animals? Seems like this would encourage developing land even if it's in a suboptimal location and would otherwise remain fallow, which seems less sustainable than the status quo.

Is there much of that in private hands? You can't develop land in a vacuum, you still have to do something profitable with it and transport the result to some market.

In the EU there are "set-aside" payments to encourage farmers to do this, and national parks and other restrictions to protect the more valuable habitats.

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#52

Post by jampekka »

Especially contemporary Georgists seem to be fixated on land tax. In the 19th century a big focus on land kinda made sense because agriculture was such a huge part of the economy.

What's missed is the general idea. It's not land per se but any ownership that can be/is used for "rent seeking" (i.e. getting money without contributing any work). Nowadays things like intellectual property, natural resources and major infrastructure are the major things that should be taxed in this spirit.

Expanding this idea to that all means of production falls in the rent seeking category, one arrives at socialism.

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#53

Post by stoneman24 »

aketchum wrote: post #14

I grew up in Fairhope, Alabama which was established as a single tax colony inspired by the theories of Henry George. One of the most interesting things to me is that on the bay, you can have two houses next to each other, both for sale and both equivalent in terms of house quality. One house happens to be on colony land and the other is not, so when you buy one house you own the land, but the other you get the 99 ye…

In the UK, you see homes in England marked as either freehold ( you own the land) or leasehold (someone else owns the land and you had a long term lease and traditionally paid a small fee each year called ground rent). The issue was if the lease didn’t have long left then selling or getting a mortgage on it was more difficult.

Recently the home builders on new houses have sold the house and then also been selling the leases to a 3rd party as an investment. These 3rd parties have been radically increasing the annual ground to much higher levels. I’m never going for a lease hold property.

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#54

Post by unshavedyak »

303uru wrote: post #10

I'm a huge proponent of land tax. Here's why I think it's worth considering: 1. Economic Efficiency: Unlike income or consumption taxes, an LVT is non-distortionary. It doesn't discourage productive activities like work, saving, or investment. Land is a fixed resource; its supply doesn't change with price or tax fluctuations. Therefore, an LVT wouldn't distort market incentives, unlike other taxes. By shifting the ta…

As an aside, i'd be curious how this strategy would work for long term farming. Ie 40+ year tree farms, where they own thousands (millions?) of acres which sit for 40 years, harvest, and then go back to being idle.

You could say that they can set the land to being a special tax code for tree farming or w/e. Which is something that already exists. I've been looking for a 10 acre plot (being picky on location, shape, etcetc) for a couple years now and most plots are already taxed at a lower rate due to this sort of tax code.

So my question/point is, people who are selling land (presumably as part of an investment) would be muddled in with people who are holding thousands of acres for tree farming. At least, in my experience.

What's the solution in this area? Be more restrictive on who gets the relaxed tax incentive? Perhaps not care, and assume wood prices will go up dramatically since tree farming is now much more expensive? Just curious on your thoughts

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#55

Post by robertlagrant »

303uru wrote: post #10

I'm a huge proponent of land tax. Here's why I think it's worth considering: 1. Economic Efficiency: Unlike income or consumption taxes, an LVT is non-distortionary. It doesn't discourage productive activities like work, saving, or investment. Land is a fixed resource; its supply doesn't change with price or tax fluctuations. Therefore, an LVT wouldn't distort market incentives, unlike other taxes. By shifting the ta…

Just some possibly ill-thought out comments:

> Unlike income or consumption taxes, an LVT is non-distortionary. It doesn't discourage productive activities like work, saving, or investment

It's not great for anyone who chose to invest in land based on the current rules, and then the rules change.

> Many landowners hold onto vacant or underutilized land as a speculative investment, waiting for its value to increase

This is a symptom, not a root problem.

> encouraging landowners to develop or sell their land

The land may now be worth less than it was, as it has an instant and recurring negative sign attached to it.

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#56

Post by kdmccormick »

robertlagrant wrote: post #41
sokoloff wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The strongest incentive to develop land exists for land which has a high value owing to its location. Land out in the countryside would not be hugely taxed under this system.

But it'd still be taxed.

Any good LVT in my mind would robustly employ "conservation easements", which lower/waive taxes on land that is preserved for environmental protection. These are a common tool of land trusts today, and IMO they would fit great alongside LVT.

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#57

Post by r3trohack3r »

dukeyukey wrote: post #31
strangesmells06 wrote: post #22

I personally think people's first property should be tax-free. their actual home. people own more than that The property should be taxed also corporation-owned properties should be taxed edit: i mean annual property taxes

The indirect effect of that is subsidising (richer) homeowners at the expense of (poorer) renters. I really don't think that's a good thing.

I’m not sure this is the right lens. Poorer renter isn’t a static label, we need to build paths that allow the lower and middle class to build equity.

The goal of these policies, IMH(umble)O, should be to help poorer renters become richer homeowners.

I feel like you do that by reducing the total cost of walking that path. Not by increasing their tax obligation every step up the socio-economic ladder they climb on their way out of the lower class.

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#58

Post by automatic6131 »

I really like the idea of a Land Value Tax. However, the devil is in the details. How will it be calculated? Who will calculate it? How can they be held accountable?

It could so easily go badly though, and be worse than the existing system. The arguments in favor though, are very compelling.

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#59

Post by TuringNYC »

rodonn wrote: post #32
JTbane wrote: post #6

Dumb question about land value tax- does it unfairly penalize people who own large tracts of land like farmers and loggers?

They key is that it is a tax on the value of the land not the size, so large plots of land would face a much smaller tax per acre compared to prime real estate in a city. It is true that a LVT will have a larger percentage impact on the market value of undeveloped land who bought land for speculation without any investments in making the land more valuable. This will especially affect people who bought up lots of lan…

> They key is that it is a tax on the value of the land not the size

Yes, but you could also say:

"They key is that it is a tax on the relationships between specific landowners and the local representatives and lobby dollars spent"

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#60

Post by throw0101a »

nwah1 wrote: post #25
303uru wrote: post #10

I'm a huge proponent of land tax. Here's why I think it's worth considering: 1. Economic Efficiency: Unlike income or consumption taxes, an LVT is non-distortionary. It doesn't discourage productive activities like work, saving, or investment. Land is a fixed resource; its supply doesn't change with price or tax fluctuations. Therefore, an LVT wouldn't distort market incentives, unlike other taxes. By shifting the ta…

To me the key issue is the Law of Rent. It helps explain issues like Elizabeth Warren's Two-Income Trap. Why does technological progress not seem to result in overall increasing leisure and standard of living? That is why Henry George titled his book "Progress and Poverty". He was explaining that paradox using the law of rent developed by Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and proposing their solution with a megaphone.

> Why does progress not result in increasing leisure and standard of living in many important ways?

First off it did: the standard of living of anyone in a Western/industrialized society is ridiculously higher than 100 years ago. And even for less well-developed countries reduced absolute poverty and the diffusion of technology (Germ Theory, vaccines, mobile phones) has done wonders.

One interesting metric is that the cost/effort of being about to produce one hour of light has absolutely plummeted over time:

* https://www.vox.com/2015/6/9/8749751/historic-cost-of-lighti...

As Terry Pratchett observed:

> You can't make people happy by law. If you said to a bunch of average people two hundred years ago "Would you be happy in a world where medical care is widely available, houses are clean, the world's music and sights and foods can be brought into your home at small cost, travelling even 100 miles is easy, childbirth is generally not fatal to mother or child, you don't have to die of dental abcesses and you don't have to do what the squire tells you" they'd think you were talking about the New Jerusalem and say 'yes'.

* http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.pratchett/msg/ee9e9fb...

If you're talking about working hours:

> Now it is true that the needs of human beings may seem to be insatiable. But they fall into two classes --those needs which are absolute in the sense that we feel them whatever the situation of our fellow human beings may be, and those which are relative in the sense that we feel them only if their satisfaction lifts us above, makes us feel superior to, our fellows. Needs of the second class, those which satisfy the desire for superiority, may indeed be insatiable; for the higher the general level, the higher still are they. But this is not so true of the absolute needs-a point may soon be reached, much sooner perhaps than we are all of us aware of, when these needs are satisfied in the sense that we prefer to devote our further energies to non-economic purposes.

[…]

> For many ages to come the old Adam will be so strong in us that everybody will need to do some work if he is to be contented. We shall do more things for ourselves than is usual with the rich to-day, only too glad to have small duties and tasks and routines. But beyond this, we shall endeavour to spread the bread thin on the butter-to make what work there is still to be done to be as widely shared as possible. Three-hour shifts or a fifteen-hour week may put off the problem for a great while. For three hours a day is quite enough to satisfy the old Adam in most of us!

* John Maynard Keynes, "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren" (1930)

* http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf

An essay putting forward / hypothesizing four reasons on why the above did not happen (We haven't spread the wealth around enough; People actually love working; There's no limit to human desires; Leisure is expensive):

* https://www.vox.com/2014/11/20/7254877/keynes-work-leisure

Post reply on HN