4 ms·

Minor nit: > Tax individual income at a higher rate. We should instead move the tax burden to land, since holding land is completely unproductive, and as oppo

Minor nit: > Tax individual income at a higher rate. We should instead move the tax burden to land, since holding land is completely unproductive, and as opposed to working for an income, which is productive.

adventured 7y ago
Holding land isn't unproductive. Existing is a pre-requisite to working for an income. Having shelter is a pre-requisite to existing. Shelter is extremely productive in fact and is necessary. That's like pretending that the factory roof isn't productive because all it does is provide shelter from the elements, so it's unnecessary. It can make a lot of sense to be a land owner, which is why people seek it out so strongly. Being able to say: this is mine, this is not yours, this is not the tribe's land, this is where I shall raise my family for the next 20 years, this is my private space to do as I please; that's extremely enticing (for most non-robots). Eating food at home is productive. Raising children under a safe roof is productive. Learning in the comfort of your home is productive. Resting is productive. A good night's sleep is productive. And so on. Further, factories exist on directly productive land. It often makes sense to own that land for all sorts of good reasons. There's a fair argument for land tax adjustments, however it should go with increased income taxes on the top 1/3 regardless. Although it has to be very technical. Taxing people that own $10m houses in SF at the same elevated rate as a homeowner in a poor rural region would be economic assassination. Of course this all needs to go hand-in-hand with demolishing our healthcare system and remaking it into a system with per capita costs 50% lower than they are today (which gets us close to the rest of the developed world). Doing that is how we finally get universal coverage, until then all properly universal systems will remain blindingly expensive. The economic benefit to the new system having a lower cost, universal healthcare system would be very far reaching.
- neilparikh 7y ago
  > Having shelter is a pre-requisite to existing. That's why I said land instead of property. Land can't be created or destroyed, so there's no need to provide incentives for it, or worry about disincentivizing it. > Taxing people that own $10m houses in SF at the same elevated rate as a homeowner in a poor rural region would be economic assassination. I'm not sure this would be a problem. Increasing the land tax brings down the property value, since the value reflects some multiple of the rents you can extract from it, and so the tax would naturally be corrected. Of course, all this depends on having a good system to assess land. I'm in agreement about healthcare; too much time is spent on discussing single payer vs private etc., and not enough on bringing down the costs, that would be there regardless of the system we use.

adventured 7y ago

Holding land isn't unproductive. Existing is a pre-requisite to working for an income. Having shelter is a pre-requisite to existing. Shelter is extremely productive in fact and is necessary. That's like pretending that the factory roof isn't productive because all it does is provide shelter from the elements, so it's unnecessary. It can make a lot of sense to be a land owner, which is why people seek it out so strongly. Being able to say: this is mine, this is not yours, this is not the tribe's land, this is where I shall raise my family for the next 20 years, this is my private space to do as I please; that's extremely enticing (for most non-robots). Eating food at home is productive. Raising children under a safe roof is productive. Learning in the comfort of your home is productive. Resting is productive. A good night's sleep is productive. And so on. Further, factories exist on directly productive land. It often makes sense to own that land for all sorts of good reasons. There's a fair argument for land tax adjustments, however it should go with increased income taxes on the top 1/3 regardless. Although it has to be very technical. Taxing people that own $10m houses in SF at the same elevated rate as a homeowner in a poor rural region would be economic assassination. Of course this all needs to go hand-in-hand with demolishing our healthcare system and remaking it into a system with per capita costs 50% lower than they are today (which gets us close to the rest of the developed world). Doing that is how we finally get universal coverage, until then all properly universal systems will remain blindingly expensive. The economic benefit to the new system having a lower cost, universal healthcare system would be very far reaching.

neilparikh 7y ago
> Having shelter is a pre-requisite to existing. That's why I said land instead of property. Land can't be created or destroyed, so there's no need to provide incentives for it, or worry about disincentivizing it. > Taxing people that own $10m houses in SF at the same elevated rate as a homeowner in a poor rural region would be economic assassination. I'm not sure this would be a problem. Increasing the land tax brings down the property value, since the value reflects some multiple of the rents you can extract from it, and so the tax would naturally be corrected. Of course, all this depends on having a good system to assess land. I'm in agreement about healthcare; too much time is spent on discussing single payer vs private etc., and not enough on bringing down the costs, that would be there regardless of the system we use.