5 ms·

Well, land and property taxes are not the same- the notable difference being that property taxes penalize building/remodeling/additional construction and so for

by geocon 4y ago

Well, land and property taxes are not the same- the notable difference being that property taxes penalize building/remodeling/additional construction and so forth. A big part of addressing NIMBYism is to remove the economic incentives for it, a lot of which is attempting to profit off of increasing land values, which is much harder with an LVT- so shifting the way that people think about housing, away from investment and towards a consumer good, goes a long way. Even beyond NIMBYism treating housing as a method for household wealthbuilding causes problems.

stevenalowe 4y ago
The NIMBYism I've noticed - a small subset, to be sure - would not be affected by any tax. People don't want mass housing, prisons, or industries in their neighborhood because of the increased risks (traffic, crime, pollution, etc.) and inconvenience, not just the effects on property values. Adding another tax solves nothing.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  Part of how LVT "solves" this is that if you really don't want to develop your property to the point that the market thinks it can handle, you have to put your money where your mouth is to enforce NIMBYism, since the land tax of developing vs not developing would be the same.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    Frankly, people are already giving up moneymaking opportunities by not turning their literal own backyard into a multistorey apartment development or glue factory where permitted. LVT doesn't radically alter that, just adds a stick incentive as well as a carrot incentive Usually the obstacle is they're not permitted to, not least because the neighbours don't want it. LVT doesn't solve the neighbours not wanting it - at best they get a small tax reduction but they still live next door to a glue factory and will lose money selling their house. For some things it makes it worse: now people protest against mass transit they don't think they'll hear or will bring the "wrong sort of people" into the neighbourhood because land near a transit hub will be in a higher tax bracket. And if LVT is assessed on development potential of the land, homeowners that dont want to sell to developers should absolutely love some more restrictive covenants on the neighbourhood that mean the nice plot they live on is no longer classed as suitable to build anything bigger than the house they already live in.
    - bobthepanda 4y ago
      > LVT doesn't radically alter that, just adds a stick incentive as well as a carrot incentive Yes, that's the point, the current levels of incentive are not working so we need to crank it up > LVT doesn't solve the neighbours not wanting it The point is to crank up the pain, a lot. NIMBY-ism can be very local since not every parcel of land is being developed at the same time, but the beauty of LVT is that land value doesn't vary much in a local immediate area, so it hits everyone the same. The idea is that if everyone is hurting, they will seek relief as a group by overall relaxing restrictions that would better allow them to meet their tax burden. > For some things it makes it worse: now people protest against mass transit they don't think they'll hear or will bring the "wrong sort of people" into the neighbourhood because land near a transit hub will be in a higher tax bracket. This already happens. Those who want to NIMBY against new development will do so in any shape or form it takes, and it's not clear that the current paradigm is really effectively addressing this either. > And if LVT is assessed on development potential of the land LVT is assessed on land value, and development potential is but one piece. Other pieces include convenience, good amenities like parks and schools, etc. Part of why I find LVT so appealing is that it has the potential to address (not necessarily completely solve, but address) the US's very unequal system of things like access to good schools, parks, convenience that are more or less funded by local property taxes; if you want good services, you will also be forced to open those up to others as well to address your tax burden.
      - notahacker 4y ago
        > The point is to crank up the pain, a lot. NIMBY-ism can be very local since not every parcel of land is being developed at the same time, but the beauty of LVT is that land value doesn't vary much in a local immediate area, so it hits everyone the same. The idea is that if everyone is hurting, they will seek relief as a group by overall relaxing restrictions that would better allow them to meet their tax burden. Nope. If I'm hurting from my tax burden, I don't want to remove restrictions on development which will make my land more valuable (unless I've decided to move). On the contrary, there's nothing I'd love more than a zoning restriction which not only stops my neighbour building an apartment block overlooking my property but also reduces my taxes as my dwelling no longer sits on land which can be considered prime real estate for building apartments on. (As an aside, talking about 'cranking up the pain a lot' on people who are guilty of the crime of enjoying a house they bought in an area which is nice as a benefit to the system is a large part of the reason that Georgism has never really got anywhere) > This already happens. Those who want to NIMBY against new development will do so in any shape or form it takes, and it's not clear that the current paradigm is really effectively addressing this either. But as I said in the part you reply to, LVT explicitly creates new incentives to NIMBY: people that do not find the noise of a mass transit system bothersome will find the tax increases bothersome (unless they're personally big users of the system). That's more people opposing the development than before. Indeed it creates incentives to NIMBY against stuff almost universally considered good because the further away the excellent public school is, the less tax you pay. This doesn't mean facilities will be built in deprived areas, it means people will seek to block them being built in good areas. A "solution" to NIMBYism which creates more NIMBYism is no kind of solution at all
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  > People don't want mass housing, prisons, or industries in their neighborhood because of the increased risks (traffic, crime, pollution, etc.) and inconvenience, not just the effects on property values LVT would force these people (on the margin) to move to less desirable areas since their tax bill will go up. When they people will buy their house and want higher density housing put it since it's cheaper than single family homes under LVT. Over time all the single family home wanters will be forced to live further from the city center/desirable areas as land value continues to rise due to development in the area.
  - stevenalowe 4y ago
    It seems that the LVT has a lot in common with the recent (insane) proposal to tax unrealized capital gains on stocks. Property taxes are already bad enough, but at least they’re based on actual sales figures not estimated/imaginary “potential market value” Not even going to get into the weird incentives/pressure this would create for zoning boards.
    - colinmhayes 4y ago
      All taxes are bad in some way. We just have to decide which ones to implement or which spending to cut. I’d prefer to see a land value tax over pretty much anything other than a VAT because it is far less distortionary, but that doesn’t mean it is without its problems.

by geocon 4y ago

stevenalowe 4y ago

The NIMBYism I've noticed - a small subset, to be sure - would not be affected by any tax. People don't want mass housing, prisons, or industries in their neighborhood because of the increased risks (traffic, crime, pollution, etc.) and inconvenience, not just the effects on property values. Adding another tax solves nothing.

bobthepanda 4y ago
Part of how LVT "solves" this is that if you really don't want to develop your property to the point that the market thinks it can handle, you have to put your money where your mouth is to enforce NIMBYism, since the land tax of developing vs not developing would be the same.
- notahacker 4y ago
  Frankly, people are already giving up moneymaking opportunities by not turning their literal own backyard into a multistorey apartment development or glue factory where permitted. LVT doesn't radically alter that, just adds a stick incentive as well as a carrot incentive Usually the obstacle is they're not permitted to, not least because the neighbours don't want it. LVT doesn't solve the neighbours not wanting it - at best they get a small tax reduction but they still live next door to a glue factory and will lose money selling their house. For some things it makes it worse: now people protest against mass transit they don't think they'll hear or will bring the "wrong sort of people" into the neighbourhood because land near a transit hub will be in a higher tax bracket. And if LVT is assessed on development potential of the land, homeowners that dont want to sell to developers should absolutely love some more restrictive covenants on the neighbourhood that mean the nice plot they live on is no longer classed as suitable to build anything bigger than the house they already live in.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    > LVT doesn't radically alter that, just adds a stick incentive as well as a carrot incentive Yes, that's the point, the current levels of incentive are not working so we need to crank it up > LVT doesn't solve the neighbours not wanting it The point is to crank up the pain, a lot. NIMBY-ism can be very local since not every parcel of land is being developed at the same time, but the beauty of LVT is that land value doesn't vary much in a local immediate area, so it hits everyone the same. The idea is that if everyone is hurting, they will seek relief as a group by overall relaxing restrictions that would better allow them to meet their tax burden. > For some things it makes it worse: now people protest against mass transit they don't think they'll hear or will bring the "wrong sort of people" into the neighbourhood because land near a transit hub will be in a higher tax bracket. This already happens. Those who want to NIMBY against new development will do so in any shape or form it takes, and it's not clear that the current paradigm is really effectively addressing this either. > And if LVT is assessed on development potential of the land LVT is assessed on land value, and development potential is but one piece. Other pieces include convenience, good amenities like parks and schools, etc. Part of why I find LVT so appealing is that it has the potential to address (not necessarily completely solve, but address) the US's very unequal system of things like access to good schools, parks, convenience that are more or less funded by local property taxes; if you want good services, you will also be forced to open those up to others as well to address your tax burden.
    - notahacker 4y ago
      > The point is to crank up the pain, a lot. NIMBY-ism can be very local since not every parcel of land is being developed at the same time, but the beauty of LVT is that land value doesn't vary much in a local immediate area, so it hits everyone the same. The idea is that if everyone is hurting, they will seek relief as a group by overall relaxing restrictions that would better allow them to meet their tax burden. Nope. If I'm hurting from my tax burden, I don't want to remove restrictions on development which will make my land more valuable (unless I've decided to move). On the contrary, there's nothing I'd love more than a zoning restriction which not only stops my neighbour building an apartment block overlooking my property but also reduces my taxes as my dwelling no longer sits on land which can be considered prime real estate for building apartments on. (As an aside, talking about 'cranking up the pain a lot' on people who are guilty of the crime of enjoying a house they bought in an area which is nice as a benefit to the system is a large part of the reason that Georgism has never really got anywhere) > This already happens. Those who want to NIMBY against new development will do so in any shape or form it takes, and it's not clear that the current paradigm is really effectively addressing this either. But as I said in the part you reply to, LVT explicitly creates new incentives to NIMBY: people that do not find the noise of a mass transit system bothersome will find the tax increases bothersome (unless they're personally big users of the system). That's more people opposing the development than before. Indeed it creates incentives to NIMBY against stuff almost universally considered good because the further away the excellent public school is, the less tax you pay. This doesn't mean facilities will be built in deprived areas, it means people will seek to block them being built in good areas. A "solution" to NIMBYism which creates more NIMBYism is no kind of solution at all
colinmhayes 4y ago
> People don't want mass housing, prisons, or industries in their neighborhood because of the increased risks (traffic, crime, pollution, etc.) and inconvenience, not just the effects on property values LVT would force these people (on the margin) to move to less desirable areas since their tax bill will go up. When they people will buy their house and want higher density housing put it since it's cheaper than single family homes under LVT. Over time all the single family home wanters will be forced to live further from the city center/desirable areas as land value continues to rise due to development in the area.
- stevenalowe 4y ago
  It seems that the LVT has a lot in common with the recent (insane) proposal to tax unrealized capital gains on stocks. Property taxes are already bad enough, but at least they’re based on actual sales figures not estimated/imaginary “potential market value” Not even going to get into the weird incentives/pressure this would create for zoning boards.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    All taxes are bad in some way. We just have to decide which ones to implement or which spending to cut. I’d prefer to see a land value tax over pretty much anything other than a VAT because it is far less distortionary, but that doesn’t mean it is without its problems.