3 ms·

> Of course it will distort choices and leave some people worse off. If the author can't see that, then they have a serious bias problem. The whole point of the

> Of course it will distort choices and leave some people worse off. If the author can't see that, then they have a serious bias problem. The whole point of the land value tax is to tax land to encourage higher density and higher cost use. Under our current system we subsidize low value land uses by subsidizing the crap out of infrastructure to expansions of suburban areas zoned for single family homes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI The only revenue positive portion of nearly any modern american city/town are the few sparse walkable mixed use neighbourhoods and the dense urban core. Policies like a land value tax that push for higher value land uses are necessary to stave off the oncoming wave of municipal bankruptcies America faces. > Income tax would only provide a disincentive to work if the alternative (assistance programs) is more attractive. You are thinking in absolute terms and not on the margins. If the marginal income tax beyond a threshold jumps by %10, then even discounting the increasingly marginal value of each additional dollar earned I will value the return on work less when I hit that tax threshold.

giantg2 5y ago
"The only revenue positive portion of nearly any modern american city/town is the dense urban core." Even then most places rely on state and federal grants to make ends meet. Do you have have any examples of cities actually net positive without outside funds? "You are thinking in absolute terms and not on the margins." I think my position still stands. The claim was that people would not work because income is taxed. What you describe is reduction in work incentive when you hit the next bracket. I'm saying that in order to not work you would have to value the support systems more than making any income. And of course, most people are no where near the level income that they don't want to make more. We're pretty talking about the 1% ($600k), or maybe the top 5% ($240k). So not particularly useful for designing policy for the other 95-99%. In fact, it could be beneficial for those high earners to drop out and allow new people to take their place.
- Hammershaft 5y ago
  > Even then most places rely on state and federal grants to make ends meet. Do you have have any examples of cities actually net positive without outside funds? Did you watch the video? It's short and demonstrates incredibly well through data the problems with our model of urban development. > I think my position still stands. The claim was that people would not work because income is taxed. What you describe is reduction in work incentive when you hit the next bracket. I'm saying that in order to not work you would have to value the support systems more than making any income. On the margins, income taxes lower the incentive to work more hours.
notreallyserio 5y ago
> You are thinking in absolute terms and not on the margins. If the marginal income tax beyond a threshold jumps by %10, then even discounting the increasingly marginal value of each additional dollar earned I will value the return on work less when I hit that tax threshold. And given you don't want that dollar, and given the dollar is still on offer (the work's still gotta get done) someone else will earn it instead. This is probably a net gain because you got to do something else with your time and the other person got money they (probably) needed more than you.
- apendleton 5y ago
  > and given the dollar is still on offer (the work's still gotta get done) someone else will earn it instead Maybe, maybe not. The supply of work to be done isn't static. It might well be that the work is unpleasant, and everyone qualified to do it would now earn less than they did before because of the increased taxes, and it's now no longer worth it to any of them, so you can only get anyone to do it by paying more... but maybe now whatever the work product is isn't worth the higher cost, and you decide to just not offer the service or make the widget anymore, or it becomes worth it to automate it and not employ anyone, etc. etc.

giantg2 5y ago

"The only revenue positive portion of nearly any modern american city/town is the dense urban core." Even then most places rely on state and federal grants to make ends meet. Do you have have any examples of cities actually net positive without outside funds? "You are thinking in absolute terms and not on the margins." I think my position still stands. The claim was that people would not work because income is taxed. What you describe is reduction in work incentive when you hit the next bracket. I'm saying that in order to not work you would have to value the support systems more than making any income. And of course, most people are no where near the level income that they don't want to make more. We're pretty talking about the 1% ($600k), or maybe the top 5% ($240k). So not particularly useful for designing policy for the other 95-99%. In fact, it could be beneficial for those high earners to drop out and allow new people to take their place.

Hammershaft 5y ago
> Even then most places rely on state and federal grants to make ends meet. Do you have have any examples of cities actually net positive without outside funds? Did you watch the video? It's short and demonstrates incredibly well through data the problems with our model of urban development. > I think my position still stands. The claim was that people would not work because income is taxed. What you describe is reduction in work incentive when you hit the next bracket. I'm saying that in order to not work you would have to value the support systems more than making any income. On the margins, income taxes lower the incentive to work more hours.

notreallyserio 5y ago

> You are thinking in absolute terms and not on the margins. If the marginal income tax beyond a threshold jumps by %10, then even discounting the increasingly marginal value of each additional dollar earned I will value the return on work less when I hit that tax threshold. And given you don't want that dollar, and given the dollar is still on offer (the work's still gotta get done) someone else will earn it instead. This is probably a net gain because you got to do something else with your time and the other person got money they (probably) needed more than you.

apendleton 5y ago
> and given the dollar is still on offer (the work's still gotta get done) someone else will earn it instead Maybe, maybe not. The supply of work to be done isn't static. It might well be that the work is unpleasant, and everyone qualified to do it would now earn less than they did before because of the increased taxes, and it's now no longer worth it to any of them, so you can only get anyone to do it by paying more... but maybe now whatever the work product is isn't worth the higher cost, and you decide to just not offer the service or make the widget anymore, or it becomes worth it to automate it and not employ anyone, etc. etc.