5 ms·

Most of his stock holdings occupy land in very valuable places, and aren't paying much in property tax. The principle is to pay for what you take, not for what

by LVTfan 6y ago

Most of his stock holdings occupy land in very valuable places, and aren't paying much in property tax. The principle is to pay for what you take, not for what you make. His modest home, likely on a modest lot, in a not-huge city, is worth little. For a while, he had a couple of places in Malibu, and he told the WSJ what he thought of Proposition 13, keeping the taxes ridiculously low. Arnold Schwarznegger told him to go do pushups. Buffett saw the injustice.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Sure, his home is worth little, but he's worth billions. Should he be taxed based on his billions, or only based on his home? I see the injustice in your proposal. And, most of his stock holdings occupy land in very valuable places? True to some small degree, but not all that true overall. Take Coca-Cola, for instance. They own some very valuable land in Atlanta. But the value of Coca-Cola is much more than the value of the land, and is mostly unrelated to the value of the land. Should Coca-Cola be taxed based on the value of Coca-Cola, or on the value of Coca-Cola's land?
- LVTfan 6y ago
  To the degree that Coca-Cola is harming people, they owe something. Coke likely occupies a very valuable site in Atlanta, and perhaps has O&O bottlers on locally valuable sites, near centers of population, served well by transportation infrastructure that brings ingredients in and finished products to the customers. When communities start collecting the full value of those sites (and stop burdening the buildings and equipment with taxes) who will be harmed? Should Coca-Cola be taxed on its good will? or for adding to people's satisfaction? The biggest promoters of Henry George's single tax were business people who saw a way to a more just society in which all could prosper. But there were others -- railroad, steel, other monopolies -- whose continued position depended on keeping their monopolies, and they were less than enthusiastic about the concept. Who owns the land in the central business district of most cities? Often it is the corporations that use it, but frequently it is trusts of people long dead, whose heirs just keep enjoying the ever-rising land rent. They didn't create the value. The corporations should pay for the value of the land they use; so should the trusts who collect the land rent of our most valuable sites. And the value of Warren Buffett's holdings might be affected, but the freer market it will create will provide opportunities for all sorts of entrepreneurs to work their business plans. And recall the data on how concentrated stock ownership is.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    > The corporations should pay for the value of the land they use; so should the trusts who collect the land rent of our most valuable sites. OK, but why just the land? Trusts hold stock, too, that some long-dead person bought. Their heirs receive the dividends from that stock, for not having done anything whatsoever. By your logic, why should that not be taxed? What is so magical about land, that only that should be taxed? What makes it different from all other assets? > And recall the data on how concentrated stock ownership is. Yes, I recall the data on how concentrated stock ownership is. The exact same logic you are using on land tax applies to stock ownership. So... what was your point?
    - LVTfan 6y ago
      Land is finite. Capital can be created infinitely, by thriftiness of Labor. Land wasn't created by any individual or any corporation. (Minor, and not eternal, exception: Made Land, such as by filling in a swamp or dumping fill alongside a river. After a century or so, it stops being special, and is simply land, whose value comes from its location and the services that are provided to it. When the companies that issue stock are paying LVT on the land they occupy, and on the finite natural resources they claim for themselves and process to sell to consumers, the value of their stock will be reduced somewhat by that "pre-distribution."
      - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        If that's where the dividing line is, then bitcoin should be subject to the tax (since it's finite - only a finite amount can ever be created). Ditto collectibles - the finiteness of the supply is the point of collectibles. And ditto stuff like art created by now-dead artists. So either you need to say that LVT applies to those kinds of assets, or you need a different explanation for why land and not other assets.
        JSavageOne 6y ago
        Say bitcoin was the single tax. Then people would just not use bitcoin. That's why it wouldn't make for an effective tax. Land is always in demand (the economic term being that demand is inelastic) since everyone needs it, and it is the source of all material wealth (agriculture, energy, commodities). Thus it is an effective tax. I have yet to hear an argument for an alternative to land that is more sensible to tax.

by LVTfan 6y ago

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

Sure, his home is worth little, but he's worth billions. Should he be taxed based on his billions, or only based on his home? I see the injustice in your proposal. And, most of his stock holdings occupy land in very valuable places? True to some small degree, but not all that true overall. Take Coca-Cola, for instance. They own some very valuable land in Atlanta. But the value of Coca-Cola is much more than the value of the land, and is mostly unrelated to the value of the land. Should Coca-Cola be taxed based on the value of Coca-Cola, or on the value of Coca-Cola's land?

LVTfan 6y ago
To the degree that Coca-Cola is harming people, they owe something. Coke likely occupies a very valuable site in Atlanta, and perhaps has O&O bottlers on locally valuable sites, near centers of population, served well by transportation infrastructure that brings ingredients in and finished products to the customers. When communities start collecting the full value of those sites (and stop burdening the buildings and equipment with taxes) who will be harmed? Should Coca-Cola be taxed on its good will? or for adding to people's satisfaction? The biggest promoters of Henry George's single tax were business people who saw a way to a more just society in which all could prosper. But there were others -- railroad, steel, other monopolies -- whose continued position depended on keeping their monopolies, and they were less than enthusiastic about the concept. Who owns the land in the central business district of most cities? Often it is the corporations that use it, but frequently it is trusts of people long dead, whose heirs just keep enjoying the ever-rising land rent. They didn't create the value. The corporations should pay for the value of the land they use; so should the trusts who collect the land rent of our most valuable sites. And the value of Warren Buffett's holdings might be affected, but the freer market it will create will provide opportunities for all sorts of entrepreneurs to work their business plans. And recall the data on how concentrated stock ownership is.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  > The corporations should pay for the value of the land they use; so should the trusts who collect the land rent of our most valuable sites. OK, but why just the land? Trusts hold stock, too, that some long-dead person bought. Their heirs receive the dividends from that stock, for not having done anything whatsoever. By your logic, why should that not be taxed? What is so magical about land, that only that should be taxed? What makes it different from all other assets? > And recall the data on how concentrated stock ownership is. Yes, I recall the data on how concentrated stock ownership is. The exact same logic you are using on land tax applies to stock ownership. So... what was your point?
  - LVTfan 6y ago
    Land is finite. Capital can be created infinitely, by thriftiness of Labor. Land wasn't created by any individual or any corporation. (Minor, and not eternal, exception: Made Land, such as by filling in a swamp or dumping fill alongside a river. After a century or so, it stops being special, and is simply land, whose value comes from its location and the services that are provided to it. When the companies that issue stock are paying LVT on the land they occupy, and on the finite natural resources they claim for themselves and process to sell to consumers, the value of their stock will be reduced somewhat by that "pre-distribution."
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      If that's where the dividing line is, then bitcoin should be subject to the tax (since it's finite - only a finite amount can ever be created). Ditto collectibles - the finiteness of the supply is the point of collectibles. And ditto stuff like art created by now-dead artists. So either you need to say that LVT applies to those kinds of assets, or you need a different explanation for why land and not other assets.
      - JSavageOne 6y ago
        Say bitcoin was the single tax. Then people would just not use bitcoin. That's why it wouldn't make for an effective tax. Land is always in demand (the economic term being that demand is inelastic) since everyone needs it, and it is the source of all material wealth (agriculture, energy, commodities). Thus it is an effective tax. I have yet to hear an argument for an alternative to land that is more sensible to tax.