4 ms·

I recently went down the Geoist/LVT rabbit-hole myself. It strikes me as uniquely appealing across the political spectrum, since it reduces tax on wealth-creati

I recently went down the Geoist/LVT rabbit-hole myself. It strikes me as uniquely appealing across the political spectrum, since it reduces tax on wealth-creation AND redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor. Sadly, this very fact provokes enough superficial resistance to keep it out of the Overton window. Whenever it comes up, shouters on either side have plenty of ammo to blast it, saying things to the effect of "how could you propose giving the other side what they want!?!"

pydry 5y ago
It is kept out of the Overton window because the rich guard nothing more jealously than their unearned income. It's not like you or I get to decide what goes in the window.
notahacker 5y ago
It's less to do with appeal to people on the other side of economic divides, and more to do with the impossibility of selling "the great thing is that it incentivises your next door neighbour to build a high rise" and "sure, your parents will have to downsize because their pension won't cover the tax burden of the house they spent their lifetime saving for, but on the other hand it's great how many investors and companies don't have to pay any tax at all" to the average voter, who cares a lot more about such concrete matters than handwavy claims about efficiency or equity.
- _greim_ 5y ago
  > the great thing is that it incentivises your next door neighbour to build a high rise This is more about NIMBY attitudes and zoning laws, which are separate issues. > their pension won't cover the tax burden of the house they spent their lifetime saving for An LVT won't tax the house, only the value of the land. If the plot itself is hyper-valuable, that's not a bad place to be, financially speaking. Beyond that, "won't someone think of the poor landowners?" doesn't strike me as a very compelling argument in this day and age.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    > This is more about NIMBY attitudes and zoning laws, which are separate issues. NIMBY issues and zoning laws are very much not separate issues when one of the chief selling points of LVT is building denser. It's a selling point the public aren't buying because they mostly don't want the value-maximising development next door, and being taxed as if they could develop it whilst still living in a zoned area so they can't is obviously worse. Sure, an LVT can be designed with deductions and exemptions for land use restrictions (and would have to be), but that's conceding away one of its key purported advantages. > An LVT won't tax the house, only the value of the land. If the plot itself is hyper-valuable, that's not a bad place to be, financially speaking. Beyond that, "won't someone think of the poor landowners?" doesn't strike me as a very compelling argument in this day and age. "Let's ignore the poor landowners" is a much worse place to be if you're trying to win over the large portion of the electorate which owns some land, which in most cases is probably the second most valuable thing they own after the house they live in (which is separate from the land for tax valuation purposes, but not in the reality that if they can't afford the land it sits on, they're under pressure to sell their home) and not closely coupled to their current income. The general principle of Georgist efficiency is that people on low incomes relative to the value of the land their house are forced to sell and this should drive down land prices for everyone, but the prospect of devaluation or forced sale of very expensive stuff they've already paid for is even less appealing to voters than being taxed on next year's unspent income. (Also, the entities which own the majority of the land turn out to be both less profitable and more relevant to the cost of basic goods like food than the businesses liberated from tax) Regardless of whether you think these are not insurmountable problems for LVT or not, the thought of being caricatured as the guy who wants the tax system to force people to develop their homes into nice efficient apartment towers or sell in a great hurry to someone with deeper pockets is a much bigger concern for politicians than the thought people with different economic philosophies might actually agree with them for a change.
oh_sigh 5y ago
It's never appealing to make a long time member of a community leave because they can no longer afford the land they've owned for years, because other people say "I want that" I move to a cheap, small town. I embed myself in the community and help build it up over decades. And then, at the peak popularity, in part due to my presence, I am forced out, because someone who has never been here says that they would like to live here. You don't see a problem with this?
- rcpt 5y ago
  You've obviously never seen a Nextdoor thread about rent control.
- kaibee 5y ago
  > I move to a cheap, small town. I embed myself in the community and help build it up over decades. And then, at the peak popularity, in part due to my presence, I am forced out, because someone who has never been here says that they would like to live here. Why would you be forced out? Yes, taxes on the underlying land would increase because it is more valuable, but you would be able to move into a new property in the same community, as housing would increase in density. Now if you don't want to live in a denser community, that's fine, but you don't really have a right to prevent the densification.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    It sounds to me like GP’s concern is that their LVT would go up (across the entire town) due to popularity and become unaffordable (forcing them out economically), rather than being concerned with increasing density.
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    So I would need to sell the 2 BR single family home I've lived in for 30 years, and move to some other part of town to live in a 1BR apartment, because someone from some other part of the country can pay more in tax for the property I've lived on?
- skosch 5y ago
dnautics 5y ago
You don't think geoism is just naive? This idea that the state can magically assign a value to property and not have it go sideways for the politically disenfranchised (the poor) is pure fantasy. If you haven't gone through the process of buying a house. I suggest trying it (especially during a frothy market), and each step of the way stop and think, "how would geoism get turned around to screw the poor".
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  Poor people don't own property, though. So how could it disenfranchise them?
  - dnautics 5y ago
    In this case, I am saying that political disenfranchisement is the dominant reason for poverty, and how well meaning policies can wind putting in barriers poor people from owning property in the first place. I'm sure you can imagine how this closes the cycle.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      Wouldn't the LVT reduce property prices, which counteracts that?
      - dnautics 5y ago
        > Wouldn't the LVT reduce property prices, which counteracts that? 1. Don't assume 2. If you are poor, which do you think is easier? A higher initial capital expenditure? Or a higher upkeep cost?
        fighterpilot 5y ago
        It will reduce property prices, ceteris paribus. The only ambiguity is if the extent is such that it fully offsets the opposite impact of higher upkeep cost from the perspective of a poor person. I don't know the answer to that question, do you? Another factor: it'll encourage apartment construction, which will increase housing supply, which should help poor people.

pydry 5y ago

It is kept out of the Overton window because the rich guard nothing more jealously than their unearned income. It's not like you or I get to decide what goes in the window.

notahacker 5y ago

It's less to do with appeal to people on the other side of economic divides, and more to do with the impossibility of selling "the great thing is that it incentivises your next door neighbour to build a high rise" and "sure, your parents will have to downsize because their pension won't cover the tax burden of the house they spent their lifetime saving for, but on the other hand it's great how many investors and companies don't have to pay any tax at all" to the average voter, who cares a lot more about such concrete matters than handwavy claims about efficiency or equity.

_greim_ 5y ago
> the great thing is that it incentivises your next door neighbour to build a high rise This is more about NIMBY attitudes and zoning laws, which are separate issues. > their pension won't cover the tax burden of the house they spent their lifetime saving for An LVT won't tax the house, only the value of the land. If the plot itself is hyper-valuable, that's not a bad place to be, financially speaking. Beyond that, "won't someone think of the poor landowners?" doesn't strike me as a very compelling argument in this day and age.
- notahacker 5y ago
  > This is more about NIMBY attitudes and zoning laws, which are separate issues. NIMBY issues and zoning laws are very much not separate issues when one of the chief selling points of LVT is building denser. It's a selling point the public aren't buying because they mostly don't want the value-maximising development next door, and being taxed as if they could develop it whilst still living in a zoned area so they can't is obviously worse. Sure, an LVT can be designed with deductions and exemptions for land use restrictions (and would have to be), but that's conceding away one of its key purported advantages. > An LVT won't tax the house, only the value of the land. If the plot itself is hyper-valuable, that's not a bad place to be, financially speaking. Beyond that, "won't someone think of the poor landowners?" doesn't strike me as a very compelling argument in this day and age. "Let's ignore the poor landowners" is a much worse place to be if you're trying to win over the large portion of the electorate which owns some land, which in most cases is probably the second most valuable thing they own after the house they live in (which is separate from the land for tax valuation purposes, but not in the reality that if they can't afford the land it sits on, they're under pressure to sell their home) and not closely coupled to their current income. The general principle of Georgist efficiency is that people on low incomes relative to the value of the land their house are forced to sell and this should drive down land prices for everyone, but the prospect of devaluation or forced sale of very expensive stuff they've already paid for is even less appealing to voters than being taxed on next year's unspent income. (Also, the entities which own the majority of the land turn out to be both less profitable and more relevant to the cost of basic goods like food than the businesses liberated from tax) Regardless of whether you think these are not insurmountable problems for LVT or not, the thought of being caricatured as the guy who wants the tax system to force people to develop their homes into nice efficient apartment towers or sell in a great hurry to someone with deeper pockets is a much bigger concern for politicians than the thought people with different economic philosophies might actually agree with them for a change.

oh_sigh 5y ago

It's never appealing to make a long time member of a community leave because they can no longer afford the land they've owned for years, because other people say "I want that" I move to a cheap, small town. I embed myself in the community and help build it up over decades. And then, at the peak popularity, in part due to my presence, I am forced out, because someone who has never been here says that they would like to live here. You don't see a problem with this?

rcpt 5y ago
You've obviously never seen a Nextdoor thread about rent control.
kaibee 5y ago
> I move to a cheap, small town. I embed myself in the community and help build it up over decades. And then, at the peak popularity, in part due to my presence, I am forced out, because someone who has never been here says that they would like to live here. Why would you be forced out? Yes, taxes on the underlying land would increase because it is more valuable, but you would be able to move into a new property in the same community, as housing would increase in density. Now if you don't want to live in a denser community, that's fine, but you don't really have a right to prevent the densification.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  It sounds to me like GP’s concern is that their LVT would go up (across the entire town) due to popularity and become unaffordable (forcing them out economically), rather than being concerned with increasing density.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  So I would need to sell the 2 BR single family home I've lived in for 30 years, and move to some other part of town to live in a 1BR apartment, because someone from some other part of the country can pay more in tax for the property I've lived on?
skosch 5y ago

dnautics 5y ago

You don't think geoism is just naive? This idea that the state can magically assign a value to property and not have it go sideways for the politically disenfranchised (the poor) is pure fantasy. If you haven't gone through the process of buying a house. I suggest trying it (especially during a frothy market), and each step of the way stop and think, "how would geoism get turned around to screw the poor".

fighterpilot 5y ago
Poor people don't own property, though. So how could it disenfranchise them?
- dnautics 5y ago
  In this case, I am saying that political disenfranchisement is the dominant reason for poverty, and how well meaning policies can wind putting in barriers poor people from owning property in the first place. I'm sure you can imagine how this closes the cycle.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    Wouldn't the LVT reduce property prices, which counteracts that?
    - dnautics 5y ago
      > Wouldn't the LVT reduce property prices, which counteracts that? 1. Don't assume 2. If you are poor, which do you think is easier? A higher initial capital expenditure? Or a higher upkeep cost?
      - fighterpilot 5y ago
        It will reduce property prices, ceteris paribus. The only ambiguity is if the extent is such that it fully offsets the opposite impact of higher upkeep cost from the perspective of a poor person. I don't know the answer to that question, do you? Another factor: it'll encourage apartment construction, which will increase housing supply, which should help poor people.