8 ms·

Public investment is surely one option. Another is appropriate taxation. Vancouver’s residential property taxes are amongst the world’s lowest in terms of total

by ttul 7y ago

Public investment is surely one option. Another is appropriate taxation. Vancouver’s residential property taxes are amongst the world’s lowest in terms of total tax take vs properly value. Property taxes should be massively higher and income taxes substantially lower. Too much of the tax burden is on the middle income worker and far too little on the wealthy landowner.

ggcdn 7y ago
Wouldn't increased property taxes, combined with increased ability of renter's to pay, cause rents to increase?
- stale2002 7y ago
  No, that doesn't make any sense. If workers are always only paying the amount that they are able to pay, no more and no less, then that means that any increase in salary, will cause rents to increase. BUT, it also means that the opposite is true. If salaries decrease, such as because if a tax, then rents will also equally decrease. Or in other words, the tax is purely borne by the landlord. So it makes perfect sense to tax the landlord in that case.
  - mlyle 7y ago
    In practice there is actually some elasticity.
  - AdrianB1 7y ago
    Except that the landlord recuperates (passes) the taxes via the rent, so the renter pays it all. It makes no sense to tax the landlord.
    - stale2002 7y ago
      You can't have it both ways though, is my point. Either the taxes are passed through to the renter, or the price of rent is determined by a renter's ability to pay. These are conflicting statements that both can't be true. If renters are already paying the most that they can, and increases in wages only causes rents to go up, then it is not possible for them to pay that extra tax.
      - AdrianB1 7y ago
        In most cases both can be true; "renter's ability to pay" is usually not the limit of what they can pay, but what they are willing to pay. If you put a tax that would increase the rent 10%, some people will pay (cut on other expenses), some will move out and someone else will move in and pay. At the end of the day, any tax is passed to the consumer, so it is never helping the consumer.
        stale2002 7y ago
        No, it can't both be true. In economics, if a consumer always pays as much as they are able to, IE, it is a constant willingness to pay, then this is called perfectly elastic demand. The situation of taxes being passed in to consumers, would only happen if consumer demand is perfectly inelastic. It is literally the opposite situation. Demand can't both be perfectly elastic and also perfectly inelastic at the same time. They are opposites!
all2 7y ago
From a pragmatic standpoint, property tax _is_ rent. I make this comparison because the consequences of not paying taxes is the same as not paying rent. If there is property tax, only the government owns the property and rents it to citizens.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  Property tax "rent" in reinvested in the community. Real rent goes into a portfolio.
  - novok 7y ago
    So the scope of the investment is the difference then?
    - smallnamespace 7y ago
      We're mixing up the senses of 'investment'. Taxes are redistributed (they end up back in taxpayers' pockets), rents accumulate to property owners.
      - all2 7y ago
        > Taxes are redistributed ... No. Taxes are spent on goods an services, the same as any property owner spends rent income. The outcomes of expenditures on each part is different (sometimes a plate tax is actually applied to road maintenance). But the concept of a slush-fund and no (or few) legal guardrails for expenditures means your tax dollars probably land in a pet project somewhere, or are consumed in the financial friction of government bureaucracy.
- scythe 7y ago
  If you make your philosophy austere and instrumentalist enough, there is no ownership, only physical control. And under any Weberian government there is only one legitimate owner of anything. Luckily most governments and societies today respect a sort of legal Platonism where the law as an ideal both constrains the government and the owners of property even though the government is tasked with implementing it. It might not be empiricist enough for some people but it seems to play nicely with human psychology’s inclination towards the mystical. And of all the cultural fantasies we might share, we could definitely do a lot worse than human rights and the rule of law.
knowaveragejoe 7y ago
Replacing existing taxes on real estate with a Land Value Tax is probably the best way, tax-wise, to address the situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
- snagglegaggle 7y ago
  That just replaces serfdom to a landowner with serfdom (or sharecroppage) to another landowner, the government. Problematic with property taxes is you can not simply exist, you must be turning some profit.
  - cperciva 7y ago
    If you're renting, you can't simply exist either. In fact, you have to make enough money to pay your rent and pay the income taxes on the income which is paying your rent. Simple equity demands that property taxes should at a minimum be equal to income taxes on the rental cost of equivalent property.
    - snagglegaggle 7y ago
      I don't see your point. I can usually choose not to rent. Income taxes I think are perfectly acceptable: a limited nonrecurring percentage is taken, ostensibly as compensation for society's contribution to your ability to earn an income. Usually the way income is received means you are never able to not pay. But there are niggles. Under most tax systems value you produce, even for own consumption, must be assessed and taxes paid on it. This is problematic if you take a crop for subsistence farming.
      - amiga_500 7y ago
        You using land has an opportunity cost for everyone else. You should pay compensation for this. Income tax is not a good idea. You add value, why do we want to discourage you ?
AdrianB1 7y ago
Taxation is a passive measure and these never solved problems, just kept it under control for a while. I would like to read about solutions, not the catchall "tax them". Well, tax them and then what? New buildings will grow out of the trees? Lower prices will come by train?

by ttul 7y ago

ggcdn 7y ago

Wouldn't increased property taxes, combined with increased ability of renter's to pay, cause rents to increase?

stale2002 7y ago
No, that doesn't make any sense. If workers are always only paying the amount that they are able to pay, no more and no less, then that means that any increase in salary, will cause rents to increase. BUT, it also means that the opposite is true. If salaries decrease, such as because if a tax, then rents will also equally decrease. Or in other words, the tax is purely borne by the landlord. So it makes perfect sense to tax the landlord in that case.
- mlyle 7y ago
  In practice there is actually some elasticity.
- AdrianB1 7y ago
  Except that the landlord recuperates (passes) the taxes via the rent, so the renter pays it all. It makes no sense to tax the landlord.
  - stale2002 7y ago
    You can't have it both ways though, is my point. Either the taxes are passed through to the renter, or the price of rent is determined by a renter's ability to pay. These are conflicting statements that both can't be true. If renters are already paying the most that they can, and increases in wages only causes rents to go up, then it is not possible for them to pay that extra tax.
    - AdrianB1 7y ago
      In most cases both can be true; "renter's ability to pay" is usually not the limit of what they can pay, but what they are willing to pay. If you put a tax that would increase the rent 10%, some people will pay (cut on other expenses), some will move out and someone else will move in and pay. At the end of the day, any tax is passed to the consumer, so it is never helping the consumer.
      - stale2002 7y ago
        No, it can't both be true. In economics, if a consumer always pays as much as they are able to, IE, it is a constant willingness to pay, then this is called perfectly elastic demand. The situation of taxes being passed in to consumers, would only happen if consumer demand is perfectly inelastic. It is literally the opposite situation. Demand can't both be perfectly elastic and also perfectly inelastic at the same time. They are opposites!

all2 7y ago

From a pragmatic standpoint, property tax _is_ rent. I make this comparison because the consequences of not paying taxes is the same as not paying rent. If there is property tax, only the government owns the property and rents it to citizens.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
Property tax "rent" in reinvested in the community. Real rent goes into a portfolio.
- novok 7y ago
  So the scope of the investment is the difference then?
  - smallnamespace 7y ago
    We're mixing up the senses of 'investment'. Taxes are redistributed (they end up back in taxpayers' pockets), rents accumulate to property owners.
    - all2 7y ago
      > Taxes are redistributed ... No. Taxes are spent on goods an services, the same as any property owner spends rent income. The outcomes of expenditures on each part is different (sometimes a plate tax is actually applied to road maintenance). But the concept of a slush-fund and no (or few) legal guardrails for expenditures means your tax dollars probably land in a pet project somewhere, or are consumed in the financial friction of government bureaucracy.
scythe 7y ago
If you make your philosophy austere and instrumentalist enough, there is no ownership, only physical control. And under any Weberian government there is only one legitimate owner of anything. Luckily most governments and societies today respect a sort of legal Platonism where the law as an ideal both constrains the government and the owners of property even though the government is tasked with implementing it. It might not be empiricist enough for some people but it seems to play nicely with human psychology’s inclination towards the mystical. And of all the cultural fantasies we might share, we could definitely do a lot worse than human rights and the rule of law.

knowaveragejoe 7y ago

Replacing existing taxes on real estate with a Land Value Tax is probably the best way, tax-wise, to address the situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

snagglegaggle 7y ago
That just replaces serfdom to a landowner with serfdom (or sharecroppage) to another landowner, the government. Problematic with property taxes is you can not simply exist, you must be turning some profit.
- cperciva 7y ago
  If you're renting, you can't simply exist either. In fact, you have to make enough money to pay your rent and pay the income taxes on the income which is paying your rent. Simple equity demands that property taxes should at a minimum be equal to income taxes on the rental cost of equivalent property.
  - snagglegaggle 7y ago
    I don't see your point. I can usually choose not to rent. Income taxes I think are perfectly acceptable: a limited nonrecurring percentage is taken, ostensibly as compensation for society's contribution to your ability to earn an income. Usually the way income is received means you are never able to not pay. But there are niggles. Under most tax systems value you produce, even for own consumption, must be assessed and taxes paid on it. This is problematic if you take a crop for subsistence farming.
    - amiga_500 7y ago
      You using land has an opportunity cost for everyone else. You should pay compensation for this. Income tax is not a good idea. You add value, why do we want to discourage you ?

AdrianB1 7y ago

Taxation is a passive measure and these never solved problems, just kept it under control for a while. I would like to read about solutions, not the catchall "tax them". Well, tax them and then what? New buildings will grow out of the trees? Lower prices will come by train?