6 ms·

> The LVT is not the same as a property tax, as it does not punish those who put the land to use; it taxes only the land, not the structure built on top of it.

> The LVT is not the same as a property tax, as it does not punish those who put the land to use; it taxes only the land, not the structure built on top of it. This sounds regressive. So someone with a bungalow on their property pays the same tax as someone with a 40 story apartment building?

lostapathy 6y ago
If they're next to each other, yes. If the bungalow is out in the suburbs and the apartment building is downtown next to the transit station, the apartment will pay MUCH more tax as that land is much more valuable.
cortesoft 6y ago
It isn’t regressive, because poor people don’t typically own valuable property.
paconbork 6y ago
If someone is hoarding land on which a 40 story apartment building would be profitable, yes, they should be taxed for it
Ericson2314 6y ago
It's only sounds that we because there is so much yeoman farmer -> suburban everyman stuff in our heads. The land is our collective inheritence, so someone with 1 story bungalow on highly desireable land is actually extremely selfish and decedent in their misuse of the commons. To get less moral and more mathematical, developers can lessen their tax only to the extent that the flood the market with floors pace, devaluing the good they are selling (floor space, not land space). This forces and equilibrium where the vast majority of people do better than today.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  Are people who have more than one child (or 2.1, if you’d like for monogamous couples) selfish too?
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    No, or not nearly as much. The needs of a child are mediated by productivity, which has been wildly different throughout history. E.g. maybe we'll have practical fusion in 100 years and can support 100 billion people no problem. But the surface area of the earth is fixed. If you want 100 acres to do nothing good with, do it with a giant seastead.
    - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
      That’s not my point. And you didn’t answer my question. You spoke of commons as collective inheritance. A serial breeder..say..someone who has a couple of children with different women more selfish than someone who has 1-2 children. The commons will be saturated by the needs of genes of prolific breeders who use women’s bodies as vessels. Is that selfish? Since we are talking about selfishness and commons as a collective inheritance, define commons.
      - Ericson2314 6y ago
        I really don't care about individual-morality questions that do not show up in the aggregate. These are perhaps good philosophical problems to ponder, but the legacy of liberalism is such that we think that they imply questions to how society should be run. Nope, they don't. These serial breeders do not show up in the aggregate in any country I've every been too. If you are worried about population rates in dirt poor countries, the per-capita consumption is so much lower you shouldn't bother. > The commons will be saturated by the needs of genes of prolific breeders who use women’s bodies as vessels. Do you have evidence to think this numerically insignificant behavior is so genetically hereditary we should worry about it?
        jelliclesfarm 6y ago
        Yes. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2019/demo/sehsd-wp2019-07.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-pa... : census for 2019 and men’s fertility
jonathanyc 6y ago
The idea is to tax the opportunity cost of the land. If Jeff Bezos decides he wants to build a bungalow in the middle of Manhattan that is his prerogative, but he shouldn’t get to pay less taxes than someone who put the land to more economical use as a 40 story apartment building.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
madsbuch 6y ago
land value tax. Yes, If you decide to buy a plot in downtown San Fransisco you are taxed the same as the neighboring plot with the Salesforce tower. This is exactly the point he is making: One should put the land to good use. Move the bungalows where land is cheap and tax is low.
- pixl97 6y ago
  And generate more carbon and traffic by forcing suburban lifestyles?
  - paconbork 6y ago
    Moving bungalows away from the city center allows that land to be used for denser housing, lowering commute times. The exact opposite of NIMBY-enforced suburbanism
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    Why would I live in my bumfuck FOMO bungalo when there is enough housing in the dense city proper to house everyone I know? (or dense small town proper with good rail to other towns and cities.) Clearly I will just rent vacation bungalos when I actually have a need to be near nature.
m463 6y ago
I would imagine each apartment dweller would have 1/40th (ish) of the tax burden.
stickyricky 6y ago
> This sounds regressive. We can't make that determination without knowing how much profit a rented bungalow can receive versus the apartment building. A bungalow in midtown Manhattan might very well house one of the world's richest families. Fundamentally, LVT is a wealth tax. If you hold a large amount of wealth (land) but have no income then the tax would seem regressive from an income-based perspective. But from a wealth-based perspective, its a perfectly reasonable thing to expect those that own to pay taxes not just those who labor.
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  The argument against it is that a vacant property imposes very little cost upon society. It doesn't require fire protection, it doesnt add children to the education system, it doesn't use any municipal resources. If it's an eyesore or presents a hazard in some way, sure, but simply being vacant or "underutilized" doesn't do that. Why should it pay to simply exist?
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    The vacant lot in the middle of Manhattan has a massive opportunity cost to society. If you goal is to own a vacant lot and you don't care where it is, trade that vacant lot in Manhattan for another one in rural Alabama.
    - throwaway201103 6y ago
      The apartment tower also has massive costs. It requires high-capacity water, sewer, electric, and trash service. It requires specialized fire protection services including extra training and equipment to fight fires in high rise buildings. It has a massive carbon footprint. Why should a property owner who does not impose any of those costs (or imposes a tiny fraction of them) pay equally for them?
      - mullingitover 6y ago
        The apartment tower is likely in a high density area already built for those types of services. It's a perfectly sensible idea to penalize those who would waste those services on a vacant lot.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
chongli 6y ago
Another way to put it: the person who owns a vacant lot in Manhattan (worth many millions) pays the same tax as the person who owns an equivalent lot in Manhattan with an apartment building built on it. They would also pay the same tax as the person who owns that same lot with a bungalow sitting on it. It's not regressive at all. You pay tax based on the value of the land. If you're not utilizing the full value of the land (by leaving it vacant or otherwise under built compared to the demand) then you're going to pay more in taxes than you get out of it. The whole purpose of LVT is to nudge you toward either improving the land so you can utilize its value or sell it to someone who will.

lostapathy 6y ago

If they're next to each other, yes. If the bungalow is out in the suburbs and the apartment building is downtown next to the transit station, the apartment will pay MUCH more tax as that land is much more valuable.

cortesoft 6y ago

It isn’t regressive, because poor people don’t typically own valuable property.

paconbork 6y ago

If someone is hoarding land on which a 40 story apartment building would be profitable, yes, they should be taxed for it

Ericson2314 6y ago

It's only sounds that we because there is so much yeoman farmer -> suburban everyman stuff in our heads. The land is our collective inheritence, so someone with 1 story bungalow on highly desireable land is actually extremely selfish and decedent in their misuse of the commons. To get less moral and more mathematical, developers can lessen their tax only to the extent that the flood the market with floors pace, devaluing the good they are selling (floor space, not land space). This forces and equilibrium where the vast majority of people do better than today.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
Are people who have more than one child (or 2.1, if you’d like for monogamous couples) selfish too?
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  No, or not nearly as much. The needs of a child are mediated by productivity, which has been wildly different throughout history. E.g. maybe we'll have practical fusion in 100 years and can support 100 billion people no problem. But the surface area of the earth is fixed. If you want 100 acres to do nothing good with, do it with a giant seastead.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    That’s not my point. And you didn’t answer my question. You spoke of commons as collective inheritance. A serial breeder..say..someone who has a couple of children with different women more selfish than someone who has 1-2 children. The commons will be saturated by the needs of genes of prolific breeders who use women’s bodies as vessels. Is that selfish? Since we are talking about selfishness and commons as a collective inheritance, define commons.
    - Ericson2314 6y ago
      I really don't care about individual-morality questions that do not show up in the aggregate. These are perhaps good philosophical problems to ponder, but the legacy of liberalism is such that we think that they imply questions to how society should be run. Nope, they don't. These serial breeders do not show up in the aggregate in any country I've every been too. If you are worried about population rates in dirt poor countries, the per-capita consumption is so much lower you shouldn't bother. > The commons will be saturated by the needs of genes of prolific breeders who use women’s bodies as vessels. Do you have evidence to think this numerically insignificant behavior is so genetically hereditary we should worry about it?
      - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
        Yes. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2019/demo/sehsd-wp2019-07.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-pa... : census for 2019 and men’s fertility

jonathanyc 6y ago

The idea is to tax the opportunity cost of the land. If Jeff Bezos decides he wants to build a bungalow in the middle of Manhattan that is his prerogative, but he shouldn’t get to pay less taxes than someone who put the land to more economical use as a 40 story apartment building.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

madsbuch 6y ago

land value tax. Yes, If you decide to buy a plot in downtown San Fransisco you are taxed the same as the neighboring plot with the Salesforce tower. This is exactly the point he is making: One should put the land to good use. Move the bungalows where land is cheap and tax is low.

pixl97 6y ago
And generate more carbon and traffic by forcing suburban lifestyles?
- paconbork 6y ago
  Moving bungalows away from the city center allows that land to be used for denser housing, lowering commute times. The exact opposite of NIMBY-enforced suburbanism
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Why would I live in my bumfuck FOMO bungalo when there is enough housing in the dense city proper to house everyone I know? (or dense small town proper with good rail to other towns and cities.) Clearly I will just rent vacation bungalos when I actually have a need to be near nature.

m463 6y ago

I would imagine each apartment dweller would have 1/40th (ish) of the tax burden.

stickyricky 6y ago

> This sounds regressive. We can't make that determination without knowing how much profit a rented bungalow can receive versus the apartment building. A bungalow in midtown Manhattan might very well house one of the world's richest families. Fundamentally, LVT is a wealth tax. If you hold a large amount of wealth (land) but have no income then the tax would seem regressive from an income-based perspective. But from a wealth-based perspective, its a perfectly reasonable thing to expect those that own to pay taxes not just those who labor.

throwaway201103 6y ago
The argument against it is that a vacant property imposes very little cost upon society. It doesn't require fire protection, it doesnt add children to the education system, it doesn't use any municipal resources. If it's an eyesore or presents a hazard in some way, sure, but simply being vacant or "underutilized" doesn't do that. Why should it pay to simply exist?
- mullingitover 6y ago
  The vacant lot in the middle of Manhattan has a massive opportunity cost to society. If you goal is to own a vacant lot and you don't care where it is, trade that vacant lot in Manhattan for another one in rural Alabama.
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    The apartment tower also has massive costs. It requires high-capacity water, sewer, electric, and trash service. It requires specialized fire protection services including extra training and equipment to fight fires in high rise buildings. It has a massive carbon footprint. Why should a property owner who does not impose any of those costs (or imposes a tiny fraction of them) pay equally for them?
    - mullingitover 6y ago
      The apartment tower is likely in a high density area already built for those types of services. It's a perfectly sensible idea to penalize those who would waste those services on a vacant lot.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

chongli 6y ago

Another way to put it: the person who owns a vacant lot in Manhattan (worth many millions) pays the same tax as the person who owns an equivalent lot in Manhattan with an apartment building built on it. They would also pay the same tax as the person who owns that same lot with a bungalow sitting on it. It's not regressive at all. You pay tax based on the value of the land. If you're not utilizing the full value of the land (by leaving it vacant or otherwise under built compared to the demand) then you're going to pay more in taxes than you get out of it. The whole purpose of LVT is to nudge you toward either improving the land so you can utilize its value or sell it to someone who will.