Tax the Land • Hacker News Board

Re: Tax the Land

#521

Post by archhn » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 9:49 PM UTC

alex_sf wrote: post #385

archhn wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

As long as we live for material things, there is no alternative--armageddon is guaranteed. This materialistic system naturally causes imbalances which inevitably lead to breakdown.

Democracy has always been a dog and pony show where the interests of the rich and powerful are sublimated into a socially acceptable "war of ideals." Behind every issue, some group is playing power politics. Abortion, for example, isn't about the issue in itself, but about subverting traditional GOP values, thereby weakening their platform and making them look bad.

We must fundamentally alter human beings in order to avoid doomsday. In particular, we must suppress the life instinct which demmands continual growth or death. If everyone--not just workers-- could be made to be content with just sitting in their houses, the world would be saved.

Re: Tax the Land

#522

Post by pandaman » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 9:50 PM UTC

jallen_dot_dev wrote: post #514

pandaman wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither is positive, both are negative. Also the former does not exist in reality, in fact you often don't have a right to build anything in a township thus you have to get a permission from the local government for almost any construction (with some things implicitly permitted).

I guess I don't understand the distinction or how the second one isn't a positive right. By your own rule of thumb, if you take away other people then the right to tell others what they can/can't build disappears. > Also the former does not exist in reality Irrelevant, we're discussing how things should work not how they are.

Who prevents you from telling anything if others don't exist? But I did not think you mean it literally, to be honest, I thought you meant allowing/disallowing construction in one's neighborhood. If other people did not exist you could just as easily allow and disallow construction, could not you?

Re: Tax the Land

#523

Post by icytrumpet » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 10:22 PM UTC

Taxes fix nothing.

Re: Tax the Land

#524

Post by jallen_dot_dev » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 10:34 PM UTC

pandaman wrote: post #522

jallen_dot_dev wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I don't understand the distinction or how the second one isn't a positive right. By your own rule of thumb, if you take away other people then the right to tell others what they can/can't build disappears. > Also the former does not exist in reality Irrelevant, we're discussing how things should work not how they are.

Who prevents you from telling anything if others don't exist? But I did not think you mean it literally, to be honest, I thought you meant allowing/disallowing construction in one's neighborhood. If other people did not exist you could just as easily allow and disallow construction, could not you?

No? If other people didn't exist then there is nothing to disallow. We are talking about how people will go to meetings to try to veto building proposals.

Re: Tax the Land

#525

Post by pandaman » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 10:40 PM UTC

jallen_dot_dev wrote: post #524

pandaman wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who prevents you from telling anything if others don't exist? But I did not think you mean it literally, to be honest, I thought you meant allowing/disallowing construction in one's neighborhood. If other people did not exist you could just as easily allow and disallow construction, could not you?

No? If other people didn't exist then there is nothing to disallow. We are talking about how people will go to meetings to try to veto building proposals.

I am not sure I understand. In your view, if I live in the middle of nowhere, with no people around me, then I don't have the right to disallow people into my home because nobody is coming? How is it different from me living in the center of NYC and not allowing people into my home, the result is the same - people are not coming into my home, are they?

Re: Tax the Land

#526

Post by Jensson » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 10:41 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...

How much would you pay to save 600 000 lives? Because that is what you sacrificed instead. If you forced slave owners to compensate their slaves the death toll would likely be a lot higher as they would struggle harder, would that be worth it?

Re: Tax the Land

#527

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 10:52 PM UTC

teakettle42 wrote: post #465

closeparen wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America’s housing supply will grow. A policy that it grows only by sprawl is a policy of cruelty to everyone today and in the future who thrives best in an urban environment and isn’t super-rich. Urban environments can’t be stamped onto cornfields; they only occur when sparser environments become expensive. I don’t think there’s a right to live in any arbitrary expensive town. I do think there’s a right to have the e…

> so that urbanism is not impossible to access. Urbanism in a desirable location is expensive, everywhere in the world. It’s an inescapable problem of scale. You’re free to live like a sardine in a dense city, but it will be expensive. You cannot avoid that.

[deleted]

Re: Tax the Land

#528

Post by CryptoPunk » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 10:52 PM UTC

clairity wrote: post #519

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 disagree that we should make landowners "whole" in some sense, as they went into their investment knowing that the value of their investment could go down. it's not up to the rest of us to bail out wealthy landowners in that way, which creates a perverse incentive to seek government bailout for any and all risk-taking. enact the tax gradually, say over 5 years, and the property market will adjust accordingly.

I think when we change the laws, we should compensate those who lose out from the change. By giving people the assurance that the laws will either remain the same, or they will be compensated if a change in the law incurs for them losses in their investment, people will be encouraged to invest more of their time and money in endeavors in our society. Regulatory/institutional stability is a related concept and widely considered by economists to be an important contributor to economic development.

As for the moral argument, I find it hard to believe that individuals should know that the laws that society collectively agreed on and implemented, are unjust. To some extent we rely on society to inform us of right and wrong, and there is no clearer example of that expression than the laws and policies the government institutes through at the behest of elected representatives.

So I think the fault of unjust laws, where they exist, should fall on society as a whole, as opposed to those who as a matter of circumstance, just happened to make investments of time or money that depended on those laws.

Finally, not compensating landowners means far more political opposition to instituting such a tax, and therefore delays in doing so, and that in itself is costly. Consequently, insisting on landowners being punished for benefiting from the legal status of land ownership will be harmful to society. It would be a case of prioritizing vengeance over society's wellbeing.

Re: Tax the Land

#529

Post by alex_sf » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 10:54 PM UTC

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #506

pandaman wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Positive right: somebody has to do something for me. Negative right: nobody must do something to me. The right of self-governance is a negative right. I can see how it can be confusing since you can re-phrase anything as either positive or a negative action e.g. "you must stop stealing my stuff so property is a positive right" and "you should not deny my need for healthcare ergo it's a negative right" so here is a tr…

1) Property is a positive right. It requires that the state enforce your property claim. This does not come free; it requires taxes, a police force, etc. 2) Property is delimited in scope . You own your parcel. You do not own the neighborhood, even partially. If someone else wants to put up dense housing on their parcels, their property, there is no negative-right violation against you. You are, at that point, just a…

> Property is a positive right. It requires that the state enforce your property claim.

No it isn’t. We allow the state to enforce it on our behalf. In most reasonable states, you can defend against the commission of a felony on your property with deadly force.

Also, owning property is not a right. That’s the entire point.

Re: Tax the Land

#530

Post by Manuel_D » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 10:58 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…

> 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.

It means there's a housing shortage in Boulder. The car analogy is not effective because a Camry does the exact same thing as a BMW. But a house in Oklahoma doesn't help you if your job is in Boulder.