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

The Value of Milk.com

milk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 73 posts

Re: The Value of Milk.com

#61

Post by lmm »

makeitdouble wrote: post #58
greyface- wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the highest offer for it that you've rejected? That seems like a fair lower bound. (Not that I necessarily support a Georgist tax in this case, since it seems that your interest in the domain is noncommercial in nature)

Wouldn't that allow random people to increase your tax on domains you obviously don't want to sell ? E.g. if you owned and actively used greyface-.com and I'd make an offer of 10 000$ just for the fun of it, either you literally give up your name (I eat the cost but that's a risk I could want to take) or you're stuck with a percent of that to pay every month/year even as nothing else changed for you.

> E.g. if you owned and actively used greyface-.com and I'd make an offer of 10 000$ just for the fun of it, either you literally give up your name (I eat the cost but that's a risk I could want to take) or you're stuck with a percent of that to pay every month/year even as nothing else changed for you.

If you're willing to pay $10000 for it, even if only out of spite, then it's worth that much yeah. The domain is suddenly in more demand than it was, taking it out of circulation is a bigger imposition on society than it was before, so isn't it right that the tax on that goes up?

Re: The Value of Milk.com

#62

Post by makeitdouble »

lmm wrote: post #61
makeitdouble wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that allow random people to increase your tax on domains you obviously don't want to sell ? E.g. if you owned and actively used greyface-.com and I'd make an offer of 10 000$ just for the fun of it, either you literally give up your name (I eat the cost but that's a risk I could want to take) or you're stuck with a percent of that to pay every month/year even as nothing else changed for you.

> E.g. if you owned and actively used greyface-.com and I'd make an offer of 10 000$ just for the fun of it, either you literally give up your name (I eat the cost but that's a risk I could want to take) or you're stuck with a percent of that to pay every month/year even as nothing else changed for you. If you're willing to pay $10000 for it, even if only out of spite, then it's worth that much yeah. The domain is su…

I'm still not sure it works. If I end up paying for your domain after a malicious move I coukd as well try to milk it out and may recover my cost by burning through your brand image. If I actually got more from it than expected, I'd rince and repeat making people's life miserable. Same way if an attacker got tesla.com by pushing enough, they might extract more value from it than a flailing Tesla could, and the customer base would be worse for it.

As a society I think we don't want to encourage adversarial pricing on taxes, the same way property tax isn't just based on raw demand (or even linked to it at all depending on the country) and has elements of controls to prevent too much gaming of it.

Re: The Value of Milk.com

#63

Post by danfuzz »

greyface- wrote: post #55
danfuzz wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you calculate the FMV of milk.com?

What's the highest offer for it that you've rejected? That seems like a fair lower bound. (Not that I necessarily support a Georgist tax in this case, since it seems that your interest in the domain is noncommercial in nature)

I know of no truly serious offers for the domain, but why should that matter? I'm pretty sure residences aren't taxed based on un-accepted offers, for example.

Re: The Value of Milk.com

#64

Post by danfuzz »

lmm wrote: post #56
danfuzz wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you calculate the FMV of milk.com?

You'd have an assessor compare it against domains that had traded recently (someone else mentioned beer.com), perhaps ask interested buyers to give a quote.

Are you proposing every domain name registrant pay for an annual appraisal, whether or not they are planning on selling?

Re: The Value of Milk.com

#65

Post by lmm »

danfuzz wrote: post #63
greyface- wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the highest offer for it that you've rejected? That seems like a fair lower bound. (Not that I necessarily support a Georgist tax in this case, since it seems that your interest in the domain is noncommercial in nature)

I know of no truly serious offers for the domain, but why should that matter? I'm pretty sure residences aren't taxed based on un-accepted offers, for example.

Residences are taxed based on appraised market value; I think offers made can be taken into account on that? If not then they should be.

Re: The Value of Milk.com

#66

Post by danfuzz »

lmm wrote: post #65
danfuzz wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know of no truly serious offers for the domain, but why should that matter? I'm pretty sure residences aren't taxed based on un-accepted offers, for example.

Residences are taxed based on appraised market value; I think offers made can be taken into account on that? If not then they should be.

At least where I live (California US), that's not true. There are certain things which trigger a change in taxable value, but they're mostly only indirectly connected to appraised value. Un-accepted offers 100% definitely don't factor in and (for reasons already argued by others on this discussion) would probably cause more problems than they would solve if they _were_ taken into account.

Re: The Value of Milk.com

#67

Post by lmm »

danfuzz wrote: post #66
lmm wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Residences are taxed based on appraised market value; I think offers made can be taken into account on that? If not then they should be.

At least where I live (California US), that's not true. There are certain things which trigger a change in taxable value, but they're mostly only indirectly connected to appraised value. Un-accepted offers 100% definitely don't factor in and (for reasons already argued by others on this discussion) would probably cause more problems than they would solve if they _were_ taken into account.

California's property tax system is notoriously terrible and a significant contributor to the housing crisis in that state.

Re: The Value of Milk.com

#68

Post by klipt »

makeitdouble wrote: post #58
greyface- wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the highest offer for it that you've rejected? That seems like a fair lower bound. (Not that I necessarily support a Georgist tax in this case, since it seems that your interest in the domain is noncommercial in nature)

Wouldn't that allow random people to increase your tax on domains you obviously don't want to sell ? E.g. if you owned and actively used greyface-.com and I'd make an offer of 10 000$ just for the fun of it, either you literally give up your name (I eat the cost but that's a risk I could want to take) or you're stuck with a percent of that to pay every month/year even as nothing else changed for you.

> I eat the cost but that's a risk I could want to take

You also have to eat the increased tax going forward. Which could be spent on eg universal healthcare.

Re: The Value of Milk.com

#69

Post by klipt »

danfuzz wrote: post #47
klipt wrote: post #10

Per Henry George we should tax this kind of speculation and rent seeking, by taxing things like land and internet domains. We could use the money to reduce our national debt, or pay for things like healthcare and education.

In what way is he actually speculating or rent seeking? He has a real website on it — not just a placeholder — and he's got DNS MX records, so it's presumably actively used for email.

The website is just saying "make me a high offer", that seems like 100% speculation?

Re: The Value of Milk.com

#70

Post by danfuzz »

lmm wrote: post #67
danfuzz wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least where I live (California US), that's not true. There are certain things which trigger a change in taxable value, but they're mostly only indirectly connected to appraised value. Un-accepted offers 100% definitely don't factor in and (for reasons already argued by others on this discussion) would probably cause more problems than they would solve if they _were_ taken into account.

California's property tax system is notoriously terrible and a significant contributor to the housing crisis in that state.

You're probably thinking of Prop 13, which, no argument. But I don't think the fix is as straightforward as you imply. (TLDR the biggest problems are due to corporate landowners, not families who own a single dwelling.)

Also, what jurisdiction are you aware of that takes un-accepted real estate offers into account for tax purposes?

Post reply on HN