5 ms·

Disagree. We should go the other way, abolish all primary residence property taxes and replace with value added taxes. Other lands for secondary and commercial

Disagree. We should go the other way, abolish all primary residence property taxes and replace with value added taxes. Other lands for secondary and commercial properties can still be taxed. Otherwise you are really just leasing land from the government. On a somewhat absurd tangent, I’ve been toying with the idea of something I call a “land dividend” to solve homelessness. If every US citizen had by birthright, a small parcel of land with no taxes owed, they would always have somewhere to go. Even if they lived in a tent. And land is one thing the government has in surplus and divvying it up could could both decrease expenses while also solving a problem without creating new tax burdens.

Stevvo 4y ago
Homeless people can already go camp on BLM or other public lands, but generally they don't because living in the middle of nowhere isn't going to get you out of that situation.
dlp211 4y ago
> If every US citizen had by birthright, a small parcel of land with no taxes owed, they would always have somewhere to go. I'm sorry, but if you can't see the numerous problems with this high school level idea about solving homelessness, maybe housing policy isn't something you should opine about.
akira2501 4y ago
You're presuming that the homeless you see on the streets already "don't have somewhere to go." For the majority of them, this is not true. They choose to live where they can easily get drugs or avoid their mental health issues. Most of them have homes or families that they could otherwise return to. From ground level, access to property does not seem to be any part of the problem here. Plus, you'd want that property to be somewhere close to jobs and services or you're just going to be pushing problems from the downtown core to wherever you manage to build these homes.
sosull 4y ago
I think the idea runs into the problems experienced by newly-developed rural properties. Small, privately held parcels of land are absurdly expensive to service. Power, water, communications, sewage, food, waste etc. are easier to provide to people who live close together. And then there’s the problem of a social hierarchy of needs. People need someone to turn to in an emergency, input into their immediate environment, and focal points. In that sense land can be cheap, but places are innately costly, not just financially, but socially and historically.
colinmhayes 4y ago
> you are really just leasing land from the government. This is largely the point of Georgism. Basically the premise is that land is the most valuable asset a society has and since all profits tend to accrue to land holders in the long run it is immoral to have any system other than the government being the only landholder with the people being able to enter perpetual leases for the full value of the land. They even made a song about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Land_(song) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Land_(song)
uberman 4y ago
Any attempt to solve homelessness should be applauded. However, There are plenty of places in the USA where homes with utilities can be traded for smart phones: https://time.com/3478199/trade-iphone6-for-detroit-house/ https://time.com/3478199/trade-iphone6-for-detroit-house/ There are places where in bulk (sections) you can get land for less than $500 an acre (you would not want to live there admittedly) often land already owned by the state or the fed as you alluded to. Giving an acre to a homeless person and relocating them there though would be a death sentence.
- InefficientRed 4y ago
  That's not a home. It's a piece of land with a structure on it that needs to be demolished before the land can be used for anything. Also, the purchaser is sometimes on the hook for the back taxes (in his case $6K). I'm not sure how MI law works, but if the purchaser is on the hook then he's actually selling a lot with a condemned house for $6,500. Which is not an amazing deal, since vacant land in nicer rust belt cities goes for $10K-$30K and demolition is expensive. Again, not sure, but if that's how it works in MI then it makes sense that he's having trouble selling a lot with a condemned building and $6K in back taxes at pretty much any price. You're going to burn mid five figures before you have lien-free empty land, which can be had at that price with much less hassle. In some cities, a condition of sale for city-owned property is that the buyer rehabs or rebuilds within a given timeframe. > Giving an acre to a homeless person and relocating them there though would be a death sentence. That's probably a massive over-statement -- even in the most dangerous communities in the US a homeless man probably isn't going to be killed for no reason. And this is Detroit, not the Alaskan wilderness, so there are shelters and so on. But it is true that the land would be totally worthless to a homeless person.
  - uberman 4y ago
    The parent poster spoke of an idea of giving homeless a piece of land not a home. The BLM will sell you 660 acre sections in central Arizona at less than 1000 an acre. Stick 660 homeless on a parcel in rural AZ with no utilities or road access and they will likely all be dead within a week. My point is that just giving people a bit of land will not solve homelessness at least not the land that is typically managed by the BLM. Not that the streets are not dangerous. Even rounding up all the homeless in the SF area and sticking them on Alcatraz island would not solve homelessness.
InefficientRed 4y ago
> If every US citizen had by birthright, a small parcel of land with no taxes owed, they would always have somewhere to go. With no restrictions on use of the land, this is obviously unsustainable and impossible to make fair. Not all land is equal and if someone trashes their lot then it can't be used by the next generation. > Even if they lived in a tent This already exists -- it's called public lands. You can already do this on BLM and some USFS land. 14 days in any 25 mile radius. If you have a car then it's hard to go unnoticed but moving around to stay in compliance is easy. If you only have a tent then you could go unnoticed basically forever if yo aren't stupid so the 14 day rule doesn't really matter. Incidentally, most homeless folks have issues that make it impossible to live out of a tent on public lands. Deeding them a small plot that is technically theirs wouldn't really solve that issue.
yellowapple 4y ago
> If every US citizen had by birthright, a small parcel of land with no taxes owed, they would always have somewhere to go. And at some point you run out of land, after which point you'd need to shrink everyone else's parcels to make room for new birthright parcels. Further, not all land is equal; if one parcel has a bunch of features that another lacks, then it stands to reason that unless the former is smaller than the latter, the citizens assigned to either would be on an unequal footing. In short: what you call a "land dividend", once you've addressed the above, is literally Georgism - specifically, LVT plus a citizens' dividend (more modernly known as "UBI"). This results in a self-balancing system for ensuring every American enjoys one's equal share of America's land value. Own more than your fair share? You pay more LVT than you get from UBI. Own less than your fair share? You get more UBI than you pay LVT.

Stevvo 4y ago

Homeless people can already go camp on BLM or other public lands, but generally they don't because living in the middle of nowhere isn't going to get you out of that situation.

dlp211 4y ago

> If every US citizen had by birthright, a small parcel of land with no taxes owed, they would always have somewhere to go. I'm sorry, but if you can't see the numerous problems with this high school level idea about solving homelessness, maybe housing policy isn't something you should opine about.

akira2501 4y ago

You're presuming that the homeless you see on the streets already "don't have somewhere to go." For the majority of them, this is not true. They choose to live where they can easily get drugs or avoid their mental health issues. Most of them have homes or families that they could otherwise return to. From ground level, access to property does not seem to be any part of the problem here. Plus, you'd want that property to be somewhere close to jobs and services or you're just going to be pushing problems from the downtown core to wherever you manage to build these homes.

sosull 4y ago

I think the idea runs into the problems experienced by newly-developed rural properties. Small, privately held parcels of land are absurdly expensive to service. Power, water, communications, sewage, food, waste etc. are easier to provide to people who live close together. And then there’s the problem of a social hierarchy of needs. People need someone to turn to in an emergency, input into their immediate environment, and focal points. In that sense land can be cheap, but places are innately costly, not just financially, but socially and historically.

colinmhayes 4y ago

> you are really just leasing land from the government. This is largely the point of Georgism. Basically the premise is that land is the most valuable asset a society has and since all profits tend to accrue to land holders in the long run it is immoral to have any system other than the government being the only landholder with the people being able to enter perpetual leases for the full value of the land. They even made a song about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Land_(song) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Land_(song)

uberman 4y ago

Any attempt to solve homelessness should be applauded. However, There are plenty of places in the USA where homes with utilities can be traded for smart phones: https://time.com/3478199/trade-iphone6-for-detroit-house/ https://time.com/3478199/trade-iphone6-for-detroit-house/ There are places where in bulk (sections) you can get land for less than $500 an acre (you would not want to live there admittedly) often land already owned by the state or the fed as you alluded to. Giving an acre to a homeless person and relocating them there though would be a death sentence.

InefficientRed 4y ago
That's not a home. It's a piece of land with a structure on it that needs to be demolished before the land can be used for anything. Also, the purchaser is sometimes on the hook for the back taxes (in his case $6K). I'm not sure how MI law works, but if the purchaser is on the hook then he's actually selling a lot with a condemned house for $6,500. Which is not an amazing deal, since vacant land in nicer rust belt cities goes for $10K-$30K and demolition is expensive. Again, not sure, but if that's how it works in MI then it makes sense that he's having trouble selling a lot with a condemned building and $6K in back taxes at pretty much any price. You're going to burn mid five figures before you have lien-free empty land, which can be had at that price with much less hassle. In some cities, a condition of sale for city-owned property is that the buyer rehabs or rebuilds within a given timeframe. > Giving an acre to a homeless person and relocating them there though would be a death sentence. That's probably a massive over-statement -- even in the most dangerous communities in the US a homeless man probably isn't going to be killed for no reason. And this is Detroit, not the Alaskan wilderness, so there are shelters and so on. But it is true that the land would be totally worthless to a homeless person.
- uberman 4y ago
  The parent poster spoke of an idea of giving homeless a piece of land not a home. The BLM will sell you 660 acre sections in central Arizona at less than 1000 an acre. Stick 660 homeless on a parcel in rural AZ with no utilities or road access and they will likely all be dead within a week. My point is that just giving people a bit of land will not solve homelessness at least not the land that is typically managed by the BLM. Not that the streets are not dangerous. Even rounding up all the homeless in the SF area and sticking them on Alcatraz island would not solve homelessness.

InefficientRed 4y ago

> If every US citizen had by birthright, a small parcel of land with no taxes owed, they would always have somewhere to go. With no restrictions on use of the land, this is obviously unsustainable and impossible to make fair. Not all land is equal and if someone trashes their lot then it can't be used by the next generation. > Even if they lived in a tent This already exists -- it's called public lands. You can already do this on BLM and some USFS land. 14 days in any 25 mile radius. If you have a car then it's hard to go unnoticed but moving around to stay in compliance is easy. If you only have a tent then you could go unnoticed basically forever if yo aren't stupid so the 14 day rule doesn't really matter. Incidentally, most homeless folks have issues that make it impossible to live out of a tent on public lands. Deeding them a small plot that is technically theirs wouldn't really solve that issue.

yellowapple 4y ago

> If every US citizen had by birthright, a small parcel of land with no taxes owed, they would always have somewhere to go. And at some point you run out of land, after which point you'd need to shrink everyone else's parcels to make room for new birthright parcels. Further, not all land is equal; if one parcel has a bunch of features that another lacks, then it stands to reason that unless the former is smaller than the latter, the citizens assigned to either would be on an unequal footing. In short: what you call a "land dividend", once you've addressed the above, is literally Georgism - specifically, LVT plus a citizens' dividend (more modernly known as "UBI"). This results in a self-balancing system for ensuring every American enjoys one's equal share of America's land value. Own more than your fair share? You pay more LVT than you get from UBI. Own less than your fair share? You get more UBI than you pay LVT.