Why a land-value tax is inevitable • Hacker News Board

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#81

Post by Ericson2314 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:35 PM UTC

DeonPenny wrote: post #29

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.

We went from riding horses to computer and space ship so I don't know if those will have the same impact capitalism has especially if we have less money for innovation

As the other responder says, LVT is good no matter what the basis of the economy is. But also, we absolutely have problems specific to today around automobile use and suburbia that ultimately go back to inefficient land use.

Trying to keep society progressing without improving land use and suburbia is like trying to improve CPUs while not improving upon 1980s processes/chip density.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#82

Post by notahacker » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:36 PM UTC

mmglr wrote: post #57

kevinpet wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the whole point. If you want to sit on an acre of land in a dense area, you should be taxed at the highest and best value of that land. You make a valid point about services that can be measured, but the point of a Georgist land value tax is that land is the thing that is least distortionary to tax. I'm not fully bought in and think a transition would be very difficult, but this is one of the reasons I don't l…

> If you want to sit on an acre of land in a dense area, you should be taxed at the highest and best value of that land. Isn't that what property tax already codifies? Also aren't market forces already essentially doing this? If I sit on an acre of land in a dense area I will have developers knocking at my door and everyone has a price.

This is true (though since land is a finite resource, market forces can also encourage landowners not to sell the land to someone wanting to put it to efficient use now if the shortage of suitable development land in the area is likely to grow worse)

The theory behind LVT is that the increase in a land's value from it becoming the centre of a bustling city should accrue to funds the government spends on the city's population (which helps make land more valuable) and not the person that's sitting on the land

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#83

Post by throwaway201103 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:36 PM UTC

yenwodyah wrote: post #49

Rickvst wrote: post #18

Land-value tax doesn't have huge inefficiencies like some other taxes. But the hard part is assessing "value". How should land value be decided? The book "Radical Markets" has some good insights on how to find the value of every plot of land by using markets.

Most societies already levy property taxes on real estate, including on unimproved land. I don't know how they assess the value of that land, but they must have a working method for it.

Typically it's assessed value inferred from market sales data from similar properties.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#84

Post by ichbinwiederda » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

jvvlimme wrote: post #77

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.

I am talking from experience. You are wrong on both counts.

What makes you think that poor people don't inherit property? There are lots of people with very low incomes but who own a house. And no they don't just sell it. Why sell the only house you have? Or maybe it is not their house but it is a piece of property that they have always owned and which they use as a garden or a yard or storage.

They don't sell it because they'd rather have a piece of land to enjoy then some money in the bank. It might be their only luxury in an otherwise frugal life.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#85

Post by ghayes » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

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…

Do you have a viable alternative to property taxes for raising municipal revenues? Additionally, certain acts like California Prop 13 of 1978 attempt to solve the problem you’re addressing but, in my opinion, ended up causing much more harm than good.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_...

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#86

Post by chiefofgxbxl » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:39 PM UTC

spenczar5 wrote: post #63

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.

Carbon taxes don't seem simple, to me. Measuring the carbon cost of many things seems really hard. What's the carbon tax rate of income from a downtown parking lot? How do you even reason about that? (the others, sure, much simpler)

You don't need to measure the carbon cost of everything. You tax carbon at the source, like power generation and oil drilling. The costs will naturally balance upwards.

The downtown parking lot, for example, probably doesn't have recurring carbon costs. The gasoline people use to drive there will be more expensive from the carbon tax on oil and gasoline production, and the cement or asphalt that takes electricity to produce will be covered by the source-charge on power plants.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#87

Post by inetknght » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:39 PM UTC

ghayes wrote: post #85

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…

Do you have a viable alternative to property taxes for raising municipal revenues? Additionally, certain acts like California Prop 13 of 1978 attempt to solve the problem you’re addressing but, in my opinion, ended up causing much more harm than good. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_...

> Do you have a viable alternative to property taxes for raising municipal revenues?

Income and/or sales tax.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#88

Post by throwaway201103 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:40 PM UTC

stickyricky wrote: post #54

nathanvanfleet wrote: post #25

> The LVT is not the same as a property tax, as it does not punish those who put the land to use; it taxes only the land, not the structure built on top of it. This sounds regressive. So someone with a bungalow on their property pays the same tax as someone with a 40 story apartment building?

> This sounds regressive. We can't make that determination without knowing how much profit a rented bungalow can receive versus the apartment building. A bungalow in midtown Manhattan might very well house one of the world's richest families. Fundamentally, LVT is a wealth tax. If you hold a large amount of wealth (land) but have no income then the tax would seem regressive from an income-based perspective. But from…

The argument against it is that a vacant property imposes very little cost upon society. It doesn't require fire protection, it doesnt add children to the education system, it doesn't use any municipal resources. If it's an eyesore or presents a hazard in some way, sure, but simply being vacant or "underutilized" doesn't do that. Why should it pay to simply exist?

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#89

Post by wyre » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:41 PM UTC

jvvlimme wrote: post #77

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.

Source?

What is a better use than property? I though property was the best investment one could make. The government taking property because of a lack of income to pay taxes is heinous.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#90

Post by CyberDildonics » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:41 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #79

CyberDildonics wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not arguing for or against anything and I didn't write an elaborate prediction, I'm just asking what you are basing your predictions on.