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

81–90 of 164 posts

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

#81

Post by dfxm12 »

jjoonathan wrote: post #48

Has someone written up a comparison of LVT vs Rolling Leases (i.e. perpetual land ownership is replaced by 30-40 year leases)? Rolling leases just seem to have more good flexibility and less bad flexibility. By "good flexibility" I mean options to convert from perpetual ownership without screwing current owners -- our perpetual ownership model involves extremely favorable tax treatment at certain stages (capital gain…

Do you have more info explaining a "rolling lease"? I assume you're leasing the land from the state... On the face of it, what happens to/who owns the improvements on the land after the lease is up or you have to move? What happens with the lease if you have to move?

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

#82

Post by lupusreal »

fasthands9 wrote: post #16
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?

It would "penalize" those people if they owned farmland in areas where there is high demand for housing (and the land itself is valuable). The whole point is to tax all land at the value people would pay just for the land - and as a result would shift activities like farming and logging into less populated areas. It's a fair concern, but also because property tax already includes some land tax it's not dramatically d…

[dead]

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

#83

Post by PopAlongKid »

nwah1 wrote: post #61
gcapu wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have that. You get a big deduction for one of your houses if you live in it.

The mortgage interest tax deduction is one of the least popular policies among economists because it fails in its objectives. It made homes less affordable and raises prices, and enriches banks, without helping new homeowners. The concept of imputed income also helps homeowners. If you own a house that you rent out to people, the money you get is counted as income. If you are an owner-occupier and paid off your mortg…

>The concept of imputed income also helps homeowners. If you own a house that you rent out to people, the money you get is counted as income. If you are an owner-occupier and paid off your mortgage, then you effectively pay rent to yourself... money that you otherwise would've needed to pay to others, but don't need to pay tax on it.

Imputed income is everywhere, are you suggesting it should all be taxed? When you prepare a meal in your kitchen instead of paying for it in a restaurant, you effectively pay chef's wages to yourself, "money that you otherwise would've needed to pay to others, but don't need to pay tax on it." Another reason why singling out homeowners on imputed rent is fallacious is that if the imputed rent were to be taxable, then the cost of maintaining and improving the home would be deductible, just like it is for landlords, and there would be no caps on mortgage or real estate tax deductions related to acquiring or improving the property, just like for landlords.

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

#84

Post by zozbot234 »

ruste wrote: post #71

The problem with this is that it's fundamentally incompatible with zoning. I own a chunk of acreage in farmland adjacent to my metropolitan area. The township won't allow it to be developed further due to density restrictions, I have my one house on it but that's all I get and I'm happy with that, but his tax would be implemented at the state level. The state would say "You have a lot of valuable land here right next…

You're disregarding the fact that landowners are already incented to devote land to its highest and best use, as measured by how much they can gain for it. The benefit derived from a local amenity, such as a park, is currently reflected in surrounding land values; LVT would harness this value for the community that created it in the first place, rather than leave it entirely to private landowners.

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

#85

Post by zozbot234 »

jjoonathan wrote: post #48

Has someone written up a comparison of LVT vs Rolling Leases (i.e. perpetual land ownership is replaced by 30-40 year leases)? Rolling leases just seem to have more good flexibility and less bad flexibility. By "good flexibility" I mean options to convert from perpetual ownership without screwing current owners -- our perpetual ownership model involves extremely favorable tax treatment at certain stages (capital gain…

The problem with rolling leases is that policymakers have a big incentive to break the leasing arrangement and sell the land outright/give it away to their corrupt cronies, because this lets them capture value for themselves that would properly belong to future generations. Leases may work if they have strong, quasi-constitutional protections though.

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

#86

Post by jeezfrk »

robertlagrant wrote: post #55
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 Th…

a symptom of rent-seeking?

speculation... wasteful monopolization and other rotten externalities ARE the problem.

and since when are prices of land decreasing suddenly a terrible thing?

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

#87

Post by dublinben »

automatic6131 wrote: post #58

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.

How is a land value tax any different from the status quo in this regards?

There are established means through which tax assessors appraise the value of properties. They are held accountable by means of appeals in the judicial system. Tax rates themselves are democratically determined by the electorate for whom they are applied.

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

#88

Post by dfxm12 »

unshavedyak wrote: post #54
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, e…

It's rare that demand is so high to live so close to such big tree farms, no? The value of that land is likely lower than you are picturing, and thus the tax as well. That said, implementations of LVT vary. Some have lower rates or exemptions for ag.

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

#89

Post by AnimalMuppet »

303uru wrote: post #46
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re non-distorionary: It distorts along a completely new axis - whether or not economic activity uses land. It's unclear (at least to me) why Google, say, whose business activity is very non-land-intensive, should be in a favorable tax position compared to, say, farming. You say "because the farmers use more land!" And it's true; they do. But if you don't already believe that land should be the determinant of tax, tha…

Sure, the LVT is not designed to be a wealth tax, but rather a tax on the unimproved value of land. Its primary purpose is to encourage efficient use of land and discourage speculative land holding, which can lead to artificial scarcity and inflated property prices. If the wealthy do decide to hold their wealth in other forms, this could potentially free up land for more productive uses or for those who might not hav…

As best as I recall, every time I've heard people argue for LVT, they have wanted to replace other taxes, not supplement them. If you're going to keep the other taxes, well, land is usually already taxed in most places, and the tax is usually somewhat proportional to the value of the land. If you keep other taxes, what does an LTV do that we aren't already doing?

And your original claim was:

> Therefore, an LVT wouldn't distort market incentives, unlike other taxes. By shifting the tax burden onto land, we could potentially reduce the distortionary effects of other taxes and promote economic growth.

If you keep the other taxes, that benefit is reduced, compared to if other taxes were eliminating. (Though, on re-reading, I do see several bits of language that indicate you were thinking about not eliminating other taxes.)

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

#90

Post by ruste »

zozbot234 wrote: post #84
ruste wrote: post #71

The problem with this is that it's fundamentally incompatible with zoning. I own a chunk of acreage in farmland adjacent to my metropolitan area. The township won't allow it to be developed further due to density restrictions, I have my one house on it but that's all I get and I'm happy with that, but his tax would be implemented at the state level. The state would say "You have a lot of valuable land here right next…

You're disregarding the fact that landowners are already incented to devote land to its highest and best use, as measured by how much they can gain for it. The benefit derived from a local amenity, such as a park, is currently reflected in surrounding land values; LVT would harness this value for the community that created it in the first place, rather than leave it entirely to private landowners.

I probably could have been clearer with my point. A park is never the highest and best use based on gain. A LVT would make it _harder_ to create things that may be valuable in ways not measured by the market.
Post reply on HN