4 ms·

>If I have .75 acres with a single family home and 30 years later the area around me is developed I think this is exactly the framework. The idea is that that

by trgn 5y ago

>If I have .75 acres with a single family home and 30 years later the area around me is developed I think this is exactly the framework. The idea is that that person right now is benefitting from increased community wealth (which would be realized in actual moneys upon sale of their property), and hence, should be taxed more. Maybe there are some sophisticated ways to strike a balance, to avoid the situation you are describing. For example, people could pay less tax, but then they (or their estate) cannot pocket the capital gain upon sale of their property. In any case, I think a land tax is much more equitable, because it punishes landholding, rather than punishes improving land. It's the poor use of land right now that I believe is the main driver of poor affordability of housing.

giantg2 5y ago
"(which would be realized in actual moneys upon sale of their property), and hence, should be taxed more." If it were taxed only when realized, that would make sense. "It's the poor use of land right now that I believe is the main driver of poor affordability of housing." It's the preference of a large number of people to live in a small area. You could fix this by capping the number of jobs so that increases in population would be forced to distribute more evenly through the country. This would also address issues like retrofitting existing infrastructure. Otherwise, prices/salaries will increase to make the scheme moot for the upper working class. That's basically how the mess got here in the first place, otherwise competition and property tax would have made a dent. It's all futile if you have FAANG paying absurd money with the capability and will to pay even more.
- trgn 5y ago
  > If it were taxed only when realized, that would make sense. The tax man does not like this. They like wealthy people to always pay something, each year. Hence, property taxes, so it can siphon off something at least. Also, why we have the alternative minimum tax schedule to prevent stock compensation to be used as a means to avoid taxes. The little old lady _is_ wealthy, a speculator effectively. She owns a valuable asset, the land her home sits on. The fact that she moved there 30 years ago, in your scenario, gives her an inherent claim to that asset. It's because of that same view we basically have Prop 13. Land value tax is a radical statement, in that people should not be able to profit from the value created by the community, of speculation basically. Your scenario highlights nicely how that causes friction with some of our innate sense of right and wrong. Deferring taxes to sale, may be a way to address this, but if history is a guide, it will instead create avenues for tax dodging.
- trgn 5y ago
  > You could fix this by capping the number of jobs so that increases in population would be forced to distribute more evenly through the country Interesting idea. But wondering how this would work in practice. The Federal government often does this when they distribute their own facilities across the country. Businesses already flock to places were cost of labor is low, but can only that in industries that require less specialization. > otherwise competition and property tax would have made a dent You said it. There is no competition, because housing supply is constrained (zoning), and property tax does not make a dent, because it favors speculation over improvements (further inhibiting competition).
  - giantg2 5y ago
    What I mean by no competition is that the high earners from FAANG etc are able to muscle out any "normal" people. So there is some competition driving up prices, but most people lost before the game even started. Essentially the wealthy have no incentive to keep costs/bids down.
- uoaei 5y ago
  Your solutions seem hacky and off-the-cuff, when we could solve the problem by addressing it directly: if a large number of people want to live in a small area, make that area support a large number of people! High-density housing with walkable neighborhoods, and excluding cars from walkable spaces, makes all of the typical pains of city-dweller life melt away.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Aside from a small group, the people that want to live there don't want that though. There's a preference for SFH and larger footage. It's generally easier to control commercial activity than personal activity/choice. I see the real problem as too many people wanting to live in one spot. To me, my solution is addressing the root problem.
    - bombcar 5y ago
      This is the exact problem. People do NOT, in general, want to live in high density housing, they want to live in these desirable areas without them changing. There is simply no way to solve that equation without something breaking.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  > You could fix this by capping the number of jobs so that increases in population would be forced to distribute more evenly through the country. Can you? A restaurant is very busy and want to hire a new server. But, what, a city official says they can't because the city hit its jobs limit?
yardstick 5y ago
> It's the poor use of land right now that I believe is the main driver of poor affordability of housing. If someone has their property for 30 years and decides not to sell, isn’t that a reflection of the market not sufficiently valuing their property? Everyone has their price in a free market, exorbitant as it may seem to others.

by trgn 5y ago

giantg2 5y ago

"(which would be realized in actual moneys upon sale of their property), and hence, should be taxed more." If it were taxed only when realized, that would make sense. "It's the poor use of land right now that I believe is the main driver of poor affordability of housing." It's the preference of a large number of people to live in a small area. You could fix this by capping the number of jobs so that increases in population would be forced to distribute more evenly through the country. This would also address issues like retrofitting existing infrastructure. Otherwise, prices/salaries will increase to make the scheme moot for the upper working class. That's basically how the mess got here in the first place, otherwise competition and property tax would have made a dent. It's all futile if you have FAANG paying absurd money with the capability and will to pay even more.

trgn 5y ago
> If it were taxed only when realized, that would make sense. The tax man does not like this. They like wealthy people to always pay something, each year. Hence, property taxes, so it can siphon off something at least. Also, why we have the alternative minimum tax schedule to prevent stock compensation to be used as a means to avoid taxes. The little old lady _is_ wealthy, a speculator effectively. She owns a valuable asset, the land her home sits on. The fact that she moved there 30 years ago, in your scenario, gives her an inherent claim to that asset. It's because of that same view we basically have Prop 13. Land value tax is a radical statement, in that people should not be able to profit from the value created by the community, of speculation basically. Your scenario highlights nicely how that causes friction with some of our innate sense of right and wrong. Deferring taxes to sale, may be a way to address this, but if history is a guide, it will instead create avenues for tax dodging.
trgn 5y ago
> You could fix this by capping the number of jobs so that increases in population would be forced to distribute more evenly through the country Interesting idea. But wondering how this would work in practice. The Federal government often does this when they distribute their own facilities across the country. Businesses already flock to places were cost of labor is low, but can only that in industries that require less specialization. > otherwise competition and property tax would have made a dent You said it. There is no competition, because housing supply is constrained (zoning), and property tax does not make a dent, because it favors speculation over improvements (further inhibiting competition).
- giantg2 5y ago
  What I mean by no competition is that the high earners from FAANG etc are able to muscle out any "normal" people. So there is some competition driving up prices, but most people lost before the game even started. Essentially the wealthy have no incentive to keep costs/bids down.
uoaei 5y ago
Your solutions seem hacky and off-the-cuff, when we could solve the problem by addressing it directly: if a large number of people want to live in a small area, make that area support a large number of people! High-density housing with walkable neighborhoods, and excluding cars from walkable spaces, makes all of the typical pains of city-dweller life melt away.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Aside from a small group, the people that want to live there don't want that though. There's a preference for SFH and larger footage. It's generally easier to control commercial activity than personal activity/choice. I see the real problem as too many people wanting to live in one spot. To me, my solution is addressing the root problem.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    This is the exact problem. People do NOT, in general, want to live in high density housing, they want to live in these desirable areas without them changing. There is simply no way to solve that equation without something breaking.
Manuel_D 5y ago
> You could fix this by capping the number of jobs so that increases in population would be forced to distribute more evenly through the country. Can you? A restaurant is very busy and want to hire a new server. But, what, a city official says they can't because the city hit its jobs limit?

yardstick 5y ago

> It's the poor use of land right now that I believe is the main driver of poor affordability of housing. If someone has their property for 30 years and decides not to sell, isn’t that a reflection of the market not sufficiently valuing their property? Everyone has their price in a free market, exorbitant as it may seem to others.