3 ms·

This is just “I got mine” as the economists. Meanwhile younger people who want to buy homes are unable to enjoy the way of life that you are, because you were a

This is just “I got mine” as the economists. Meanwhile younger people who want to buy homes are unable to enjoy the way of life that you are, because you were able to buy a home before they had even graduated middle school Why should society have to slow down just to help you and your little old house? You can just move somewhere else with a garden. Everybody else is also trying to work and live their lives. This isn’t little house on the prairie, it’s quite selfish to buy a house in a city (an inherently dynamic landscape) and then expect the rest of the world to freeze in time

watwut 8y ago
When an elderly person want to live nearby family and keep social ties they were building whole life, it is "go away I want to live here too your relationship and you don't matter at all. Just go elsewhere, living among strangers as you are getting weaker and older is totally the same and I dont care about you at all. It is totally our right to kick you out of your house because the place where it is suddenly became in demand." Simultaneously we are collectively complaining that people don't communicate or form bonds as they used to and how community died yadda yadda and people are lonely, especially men and how sad it all is yadda. Guess what, this attitude kills any kind of in-person bonds or willingness to invest into them way more then much maligned social networks.
- opportune 8y ago
  Can you remind me what this has to do with land value tax? Also prop 13 is much more than just a proposition for seniors. It will maybe help the first couple generations of seniors, but it also allows property owning funds to secure low taxes in perpetuity My original point is that if you want to own land forever without “the neighborhood changing”, don’t buy a plot in a city or suburban area. You have no right to enjoy the benefits of living in a city while forcing everyone else to respect your rights of a homesteader on a ranch in unincorporated land. People had to deal with rising property prices and change to make the city a desirable place to live, but as soon as you get property all you can think of is keeping everything just the way it is. That’s why it’s selfish.
  - watwut 8y ago
    If my tax goes up whenever people are buying nearby lands, then it is effectively forcing people who own existing houses out. That is the senior scenario, through I am fine with young couple that owns house not being forced away just because others people want in too. You have zero right to demand that neighborhood dont change - nearby land owners should be free to do as they please. Rising property prices is what incentivizes current people to sell to new people. Or maybe build higher building so that they sell to more people. That is dealing with it. Not raising taxes for existing people so that we can push them out while keeping total amount of people in area the same. All you want is to change who lives there - not to add new people or build higher houses. America has tons of space. Businesses could move had they wanted to, houses could be build had people did not seen urban living as oh-my-god-end-of-world.
    - snidane 8y ago
      Land rights are not free. Landowner has to convince other people that he can occupy his land. How? He pays a fee proportional to his land's market value so that others don't squat there. Now this fee is just named Land Value Tax for convenience despite it not being a tax. This would be the ethically fair system. Of course in the present world the landowner class successfully lobbied that the fees are subsidized by other people from their income and similar taxes. There you have an explanation of the perpetual housing boom, because it is highly subsidized investment and there is only so much of it. This doesn't apply just for land but for anything life necessary which can't be easily created anew. If someone poisoned 90% of water on earth you'd have the same thing.
      - watwut 8y ago
        Frankly, that sounds like a motivated reasoning. It just seems that everything is about property rights and market, until it is inconvenient in which case tax is set up so that people who are not you leave, because you want their place. And you still did not made place for more people. Just changed who is living there. They dont matter, you do.

watwut 8y ago

When an elderly person want to live nearby family and keep social ties they were building whole life, it is "go away I want to live here too your relationship and you don't matter at all. Just go elsewhere, living among strangers as you are getting weaker and older is totally the same and I dont care about you at all. It is totally our right to kick you out of your house because the place where it is suddenly became in demand." Simultaneously we are collectively complaining that people don't communicate or form bonds as they used to and how community died yadda yadda and people are lonely, especially men and how sad it all is yadda. Guess what, this attitude kills any kind of in-person bonds or willingness to invest into them way more then much maligned social networks.

opportune 8y ago
Can you remind me what this has to do with land value tax? Also prop 13 is much more than just a proposition for seniors. It will maybe help the first couple generations of seniors, but it also allows property owning funds to secure low taxes in perpetuity My original point is that if you want to own land forever without “the neighborhood changing”, don’t buy a plot in a city or suburban area. You have no right to enjoy the benefits of living in a city while forcing everyone else to respect your rights of a homesteader on a ranch in unincorporated land. People had to deal with rising property prices and change to make the city a desirable place to live, but as soon as you get property all you can think of is keeping everything just the way it is. That’s why it’s selfish.
- watwut 8y ago
  If my tax goes up whenever people are buying nearby lands, then it is effectively forcing people who own existing houses out. That is the senior scenario, through I am fine with young couple that owns house not being forced away just because others people want in too. You have zero right to demand that neighborhood dont change - nearby land owners should be free to do as they please. Rising property prices is what incentivizes current people to sell to new people. Or maybe build higher building so that they sell to more people. That is dealing with it. Not raising taxes for existing people so that we can push them out while keeping total amount of people in area the same. All you want is to change who lives there - not to add new people or build higher houses. America has tons of space. Businesses could move had they wanted to, houses could be build had people did not seen urban living as oh-my-god-end-of-world.
  - snidane 8y ago
    Land rights are not free. Landowner has to convince other people that he can occupy his land. How? He pays a fee proportional to his land's market value so that others don't squat there. Now this fee is just named Land Value Tax for convenience despite it not being a tax. This would be the ethically fair system. Of course in the present world the landowner class successfully lobbied that the fees are subsidized by other people from their income and similar taxes. There you have an explanation of the perpetual housing boom, because it is highly subsidized investment and there is only so much of it. This doesn't apply just for land but for anything life necessary which can't be easily created anew. If someone poisoned 90% of water on earth you'd have the same thing.
    - watwut 8y ago
      Frankly, that sounds like a motivated reasoning. It just seems that everything is about property rights and market, until it is inconvenient in which case tax is set up so that people who are not you leave, because you want their place. And you still did not made place for more people. Just changed who is living there. They dont matter, you do.