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

Why a land-value tax is inevitable

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 322 posts

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#71

Post by fastball »

lend000 wrote: post #58
Ericson2314 wrote: post #11

1. UBI 2. LVT 3. Environmental externality taxes That's all we need to fix the 21st century. Simple as hell so basically immune to regulatory capture, and will usher in a rate of progress we haven't seen in 100 years, if ever.

Change Carbon tax to "Pollution tax" -- even on the topic of global warming, methane and nitrous oxide are potentially more harmful, and a pollution tax is far more future proof for capturing externalities.

*pollution tax that can be reduced to zero if you are capturing (not necessarily at production) the pollutant you're emitting.

e.g. SpaceX shouldn't be taxed on CO2 release from their Raptor engines if they are getting all their methane via the Sabatier process.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#72

Post by paconbork »

pixl97 wrote: post #55
madsbuch wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

land value tax. Yes, If you decide to buy a plot in downtown San Fransisco you are taxed the same as the neighboring plot with the Salesforce tower. This is exactly the point he is making: One should put the land to good use. Move the bungalows where land is cheap and tax is low.

And generate more carbon and traffic by forcing suburban lifestyles?

Moving bungalows away from the city center allows that land to be used for denser housing, lowering commute times. The exact opposite of NIMBY-enforced suburbanism

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#73

Post by Ericson2314 »

lend000 wrote: post #58
Ericson2314 wrote: post #11

1. UBI 2. LVT 3. Environmental externality taxes That's all we need to fix the 21st century. Simple as hell so basically immune to regulatory capture, and will usher in a rate of progress we haven't seen in 100 years, if ever.

Change Carbon tax to "Pollution tax" -- even on the topic of global warming, methane and nitrous oxide are potentially more harmful, and a pollution tax is far more future proof for capturing externalities.

Fair, I did an edit.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#74

Post by DeonPenny »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #61
DeonPenny wrote: post #45

This makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims. Like the bond market is saturated that seems the opposite of true. This also claims theres been a high inflation but that doesn't seem to be true either based on any metric. I think the one thing is clear and I agree with is taxes increases capital outflow. But my biggest issue is with the central premise that is taken at face value. That the government needs more money. I…

I think you mean unsubstantiated. True or not, the claims you are making are also unsubstantiated.

Which is why I presented the solution as a opinion.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#75

Post by CyberDildonics »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #56
Ericson2314 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For a $1m house in the Bay Area, only a quarter or a third of that value is the structure. So the first problem is zoning, but imagine if zoning is fixed. Now the taller the building is, the smaller the portion of the taxable value derives from the land itself. The fact of the matter is single family suburbia is a scourge, and we need redevelopment not more development. We can subsidize affordable housing, or we ca…

> So the first problem is zoning, but imagine if zoning is fixed. Now the taller the building is, the smaller the portion of the taxable value derives from the land itself. Which is sort of the problem, right? You have an area which is, say, two story buildings, in an area where you really need an average of three story buildings to satisfy local demand. Implement LVT and everyone gets the bright idea to build twelve…

What are you basing your predictions here on? Do you have an example where this has happened?

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#76

Post by civilized »

ichbinwiederda wrote: post #68

I detest property taxes. What ends up happening is that people who are on the brink of poverty keep losing their (inherited) land because the government deems it an income generating asset, even though it is not (it's either their home or some dilapidated piece of land without much actual income generation prospects). Often they also get screwed on the selling because they are under pressure and because they are not…

The solution is clear: an, ummm, income-based land value tax

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#77

Post by jvvlimme »

ichbinwiederda wrote: post #68

I detest property taxes. What ends up happening is that people who are on the brink of poverty keep losing their (inherited) land because the government deems it an income generating asset, even though it is not (it's either their home or some dilapidated piece of land without much actual income generation prospects). Often they also get screwed on the selling because they are under pressure and because they are not…

Only that doesn’t happen in real life. People on the brink of poverty don’t inherit property. And if they do, they can always sell it and put that money to better use.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#78

Post by Ericson2314 »

kashkhan wrote: post #48
Ericson2314 wrote: post #11

1. UBI 2. LVT 3. Environmental externality taxes That's all we need to fix the 21st century. Simple as hell so basically immune to regulatory capture, and will usher in a rate of progress we haven't seen in 100 years, if ever.

Add MMT to the list. LVT is good for state governments that don't have their own currency.

Modern Monetary theory is theory not policy.

The jobs guarantee that goes with it I really don't like. It's stupid in 2020 to not be trying to reduce the total labor per person.

Sure, some infrastructure projects are really important, not profitable, and might even require the training of new labor to get it done. They should definitely still happen. But I see no good reason to hitch that to jobs guarantee.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#79

Post by AnthonyMouse »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #75
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the first problem is zoning, but imagine if zoning is fixed. Now the taller the building is, the smaller the portion of the taxable value derives from the land itself. Which is sort of the problem, right? You have an area which is, say, two story buildings, in an area where you really need an average of three story buildings to satisfy local demand. Implement LVT and everyone gets the bright idea to build twelve…

What are you basing your predictions here on? Do you have an example where this has happened?

Do you have an example of where LVT was tried at scale anywhere at all ever?

I'm just describing the incentives. Identify the flaw in the logic.

Post reply on HN