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

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#91

Post by nickodell » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:43 PM UTC

Apocryphon wrote: post #27

shaggyfrog wrote: post #12

I would much rather read an article about land value tax from a site that doesn't also have an article suggesting COVID-19 is a hoax.

Upon skimming, that article appears to be general radical leftist criticism of big government past propaganda campaigns about the Iraq War and bank bailouts, and ends up calling for UBI in the form of a Citizen Dividend. Other than the anti-establishment framing, it seems to be relatively weak tea criticism, it doesn’t claim that COVID is a hoax nor engages in anti-vaxx/anti-5G woo, it just puts out a narrative that…

The article also suggests that COVID was maybe an inside job, and that it's unpatriotic to follow health restrictions. (Not in exactly those words, but it warns about "acquiescing" to government restrictions.)

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#92

Post by mullingitover » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:43 PM UTC

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…

> Instead of taking from some to give to other incentive opportunities so those who have will willingly give opportunities to those who don't

What does this even mean? This is not a sentence :)

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#93

Post by Ericson2314 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:44 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…

Sorry, they should sell. Truely cash-poor land-rich people are an insignificant class that's been held up as the boogieman for 100+ years.

You're not a "temporarily embarrassed billionaire", and if owning land one can no longer afford seems commonplace, it is entirely because the current real estate speculation scheme we prop up (CA especially).

Any realistic LVT would be phases in slowly, and give the prop 13 petit gentry plenty of time to sell and live a fine remainder of their life in a very fashionable condo.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#94

Post by dehrmann » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:44 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #50

supernova87a wrote: post #46

There was a convincing op-ed in WSJ a few years ago about how in all the states that are facing public sector defaults, the ultimate payer of these debts will be homeowners. Since basically the only place left for most governments to go is property value (unless they have huge businesses they can tax). And it is worse in the poorer states, because they don't have high home values to cushion the blow to the individual…

There are big huge businesses we aren't adequately taxing: Big tech. When your sector makes up like three of the five most valuable companies on the planet, we probably should be taxing it more. And Jeff Bezos does not need more money.

Which jurisdiction to tax large companies in, even without doing the double Irish trick, is complicated. The question was talking about state income, and taxing all of Amazon's profits in Washington doesn't really make sense. Amazon also doesn't make that much money; its profit margin is 5%; Apple's is more like 21%.

It's also not like the money is never taxed. If Jeff Bezos wants to turn his AMZN shares into dollars, he'll federal capital gains on the appreciation. He pays nothing in Washington state because it has no income or capital gains tax, and that's Washington's choice. Corporate taxes are also a form of double taxation for this reason; the profits are taxed when the company makes the money, and taxed when investors realize gains.

Amazon also indirectly pays taxes in ways you're not thinking about. There's sales tax on sales, taxes on all the supplies it buys, property tax on all the land it owns, payroll tax for employees, and its employees also pay income tax (except in Washington), property tax, etc.

Taxes are actually getting collected pretty much everywhere along that chain. The usual criticism is with tax inversions, and even those mostly defer taxes, and because dividends and capital gains are taxed, I'm not convinced it makes sense to tax corporation.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#95

Post by jelliclesfarm » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:45 PM UTC

Ericson2314 wrote: post #66

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are people who have more than one child (or 2.1, if you’d like for monogamous couples) selfish too?

No, or not nearly as much. The needs of a child are mediated by productivity, which has been wildly different throughout history. E.g. maybe we'll have practical fusion in 100 years and can support 100 billion people no problem. But the surface area of the earth is fixed. If you want 100 acres to do nothing good with, do it with a giant seastead.

That’s not my point. And you didn’t answer my question. You spoke of commons as collective inheritance.

A serial breeder..say..someone who has a couple of children with different women more selfish than someone who has 1-2 children.

The commons will be saturated by the needs of genes of prolific breeders who use women’s bodies as vessels. Is that selfish? Since we are talking about selfishness and commons as a collective inheritance, define commons.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#96

Post by CyberDildonics » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:45 PM UTC

DeonPenny wrote: post #74

CyberDildonics wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By the same logic, the link is also an opinion. Also if you use asset prices as a metric, there has been plenty of inflation.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#97

Post by Ericson2314 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:45 PM UTC

ichbinwiederda wrote: post #84

jvvlimme wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bec…

This only happens because our terrible land use is inflating the real estate market + terrible policy like prop 13.

In an LVT world, the value of land (overall-inflation-adjusted) should basically track the population, and virtually no one will own land they could no longer afford to buy.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#98

Post by mullingitover » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:45 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #50

supernova87a wrote: post #46

There was a convincing op-ed in WSJ a few years ago about how in all the states that are facing public sector defaults, the ultimate payer of these debts will be homeowners. Since basically the only place left for most governments to go is property value (unless they have huge businesses they can tax). And it is worse in the poorer states, because they don't have high home values to cushion the blow to the individual…

There are big huge businesses we aren't adequately taxing: Big tech. When your sector makes up like three of the five most valuable companies on the planet, we probably should be taxing it more. And Jeff Bezos does not need more money.

> When your sector makes up like three of the five most valuable companies on the planet, we probably should be taxing it more.

Agreed. We should be ruthlessly taxing capital gains, and in general should look upon money earned without laboring for it with scorn.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#99

Post by dehrmann » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:46 PM UTC

inetknght wrote: post #87

ghayes wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This isn't an argument against funding government on sales and income tax alone, but income from those is more volatile in recessions that property tax, so it takes a fiscally responsible government for that to work.

Re: Why a land-value tax is inevitable

#100

Post by Ericson2314 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:47 PM UTC

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.

The properties on adjacent lots affect the land value of your lot.

It's only in trying to resist the above that the difficulties arise.