5 ms·

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_

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 ?
      - snagglegaggle 7y ago
        Property tax is inimical to the natural state of man. As in my original post, it keeps you from simply existing and forces you to participate in a system you had no business in creating. Income tax is the best compromise I know of. If you want to participate in the economy-at-large then you pay it. If you don't want to, feel free to not participate. People who make more will pay more, but they will still make more.
        eropple 7y ago
        “Exclusive access to resources, buttressed by a legal system” is not historically or anthropologically the “natural state of man.” Which is fine; lots of great stuff aren’t “the natural state of man.” But don’t bullshit about it, yeah?
        ericd 7y ago
        You inherently can’t not participate unless you live in the boonies, which isn’t the land that people are talking about taxing. Cities have to maintain infrastructure for every building - roads, sewers, power, mass transit, police, water, fire protection, courts, the list goes on. Even if you magically don’t use it (no shopping at the supermarket), sitting in the middle of it all lengthens the runs to the other buildings.
        snagglegaggle 7y ago
        The boonies are taxed though. That is most of my complaint. If someone is destitute through circumstance they are punished for it.
        throwaway2048 7y ago
        The natural state of man does not involve ownership of property...
        infinite8s 7y ago
        Well except for that which he can enforce himself through means of force.
- amiga_500 7y ago
  No, because the value is socialised. And it would mean no tax on income, because you get to keep the value you create.
caseysoftware 7y ago
In Austin, it's been an incredibly effective way to gentrify old neighborhoods. You have people who have lived in their houses for a generation and may have even paid them off but when the land under their home - let alone their home itself - doubles in value every 8 years and the rate doubles in eight years, they have to sell to get out or lose their house anyway. Then developers swoop in, tear down the houses, and build condos which are much more "economically efficient".
- ericd 7y ago
  You can solve this with an age-based property tax abatement. I’d personally aim to make it an abatement for the equivalent of a 1BR condo, though - 85 year olds really don’t need large houses with a bunch of stairs, whereas young families do, and often can’t find much supply on the market in cities, which drives up prices. If an old person wants to live alone in a huge house, I think it’s ok to tax them on that.
  - gedy 7y ago
    Geez... it's their home, not some public utility. Let them be.
    - ericd 7y ago
      I mean, I'm not completely unsympathetic, but we charge property tax partly to make sure land is being used well, and not just being sat on while it appreciates. When people live in low density housing in the midst of cities, that has a very real cost to everyone else in that city. The housing crisis is partly a result of this phenomenon, and that hurts a huge number of people.
      - AdrianB1 7y ago
        "I'm not completely unsympathetic, but" You are completely unsympathetic. There is no excuse to force someone to "use their land well". Their land, their choice, not yours. Cities can expand, not get stuck in every piece of already build land. Get the city larger, build tall block of flats, check the Chinese new city monstrosities for the results. Like this: https://c8.alamy.com/comp/A0CG0G/apartment-block-chongqing-china-A0CG0G.jpg https://c8.alamy.com/comp/A0CG0G/apartment-block-chongqing-c...

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 ?
    - snagglegaggle 7y ago
      Property tax is inimical to the natural state of man. As in my original post, it keeps you from simply existing and forces you to participate in a system you had no business in creating. Income tax is the best compromise I know of. If you want to participate in the economy-at-large then you pay it. If you don't want to, feel free to not participate. People who make more will pay more, but they will still make more.
      - eropple 7y ago
        “Exclusive access to resources, buttressed by a legal system” is not historically or anthropologically the “natural state of man.” Which is fine; lots of great stuff aren’t “the natural state of man.” But don’t bullshit about it, yeah?
      - ericd 7y ago
        You inherently can’t not participate unless you live in the boonies, which isn’t the land that people are talking about taxing. Cities have to maintain infrastructure for every building - roads, sewers, power, mass transit, police, water, fire protection, courts, the list goes on. Even if you magically don’t use it (no shopping at the supermarket), sitting in the middle of it all lengthens the runs to the other buildings.
        snagglegaggle 7y ago
        The boonies are taxed though. That is most of my complaint. If someone is destitute through circumstance they are punished for it.
      - throwaway2048 7y ago
        The natural state of man does not involve ownership of property...
        infinite8s 7y ago
        Well except for that which he can enforce himself through means of force.
amiga_500 7y ago
No, because the value is socialised. And it would mean no tax on income, because you get to keep the value you create.

caseysoftware 7y ago

In Austin, it's been an incredibly effective way to gentrify old neighborhoods. You have people who have lived in their houses for a generation and may have even paid them off but when the land under their home - let alone their home itself - doubles in value every 8 years and the rate doubles in eight years, they have to sell to get out or lose their house anyway. Then developers swoop in, tear down the houses, and build condos which are much more "economically efficient".

ericd 7y ago
You can solve this with an age-based property tax abatement. I’d personally aim to make it an abatement for the equivalent of a 1BR condo, though - 85 year olds really don’t need large houses with a bunch of stairs, whereas young families do, and often can’t find much supply on the market in cities, which drives up prices. If an old person wants to live alone in a huge house, I think it’s ok to tax them on that.
- gedy 7y ago
  Geez... it's their home, not some public utility. Let them be.
  - ericd 7y ago
    I mean, I'm not completely unsympathetic, but we charge property tax partly to make sure land is being used well, and not just being sat on while it appreciates. When people live in low density housing in the midst of cities, that has a very real cost to everyone else in that city. The housing crisis is partly a result of this phenomenon, and that hurts a huge number of people.
    - AdrianB1 7y ago
      "I'm not completely unsympathetic, but" You are completely unsympathetic. There is no excuse to force someone to "use their land well". Their land, their choice, not yours. Cities can expand, not get stuck in every piece of already build land. Get the city larger, build tall block of flats, check the Chinese new city monstrosities for the results. Like this: https://c8.alamy.com/comp/A0CG0G/apartment-block-chongqing-china-A0CG0G.jpg https://c8.alamy.com/comp/A0CG0G/apartment-block-chongqing-c...