13 ms·

Just let property owners declare a value for their land, and give anyone the right to buy it for 120% of that value at any time, with the existing owner given a

by raldi 4y ago

Just let property owners declare a value for their land, and give anyone the right to buy it for 120% of that value at any time, with the existing owner given a grace period where they can restate their estimate.

bko 4y ago
That sounds awful. Imagine being forced to move every few years or giving people with money that much power over you. Seems crazy that this idea is so popular. I'm guessing the people who like this idea are very young and mobile. Imagine telling grandma she has to move and sell her house and have police show up at the door when she doesn't want to. It's basically the abuses of eminent domain except done privately.
- turbinerneiter 4y ago
  What makes you think this idea is popular? I don't even think the author is fully behind it, seemed more like a thought experiment as a reply to grandparent. Regarding grandma: I don't want to kick her out of the house. But there is a real issue here: young families can't find affordable places, while old families live in places, that are too big for them because the kids left. If they rent, they also pay significantly less than the younger family, since they are on older contracts. Once new people move in, rent is raised to the new level. The older people don't want to move out, because they would have to pay more for their new, smaller place, than the old, bigger place. Meanwhile the young family also has to finance the pensions for that old family. Noone is being evil here, but ... it sucks. And every idea to work on it is shut down as being unfair to the people who already own houses. Even building new houses is usually opposed by the people who already have houses in the area. If I never get the chance ever to own one, I don't really feel like I have to protect the interest of house owners.
  - jelliclesfarm 4y ago
    Multigenerational families are the answer. Move in with grandma. Problem solved.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      What if grandma lives in a city where there's no jobs for me? Asking people to move in with their relatives is not the answer; the answer is very simple: build more housing. Eliminate zoning rules and start replacing older buildings with new, larger and taller buildings.
      - mlyle 4y ago
        > Eliminate zoning rules and start replacing older buildings with new, larger and taller buildings. Right now, NIMBY tries to prevent taller buildings. A land value tax incentivizes more effective land uses-- as opposed to property taxes that include improvements, which reduce the incentive to build high density.
        midoridensha 4y ago
        >Right now, NIMBY tries to prevent taller buildings. It's simple: eliminate NIMBYism. It only exists because local governments and laws allow it. Don't do that.
        jelliclesfarm 4y ago
        NIMBYism exists because people value their homes and stability. Any society needs stability to thrive. Without NIMBYs, there would be utter chaos and underfunded overcrowded cities. Housing shortage is due to unions and govts that refuse to establish public infrastructure for everyone. This is done on purpose to create UTism .. Us VS Them..between property owners and those who don’t own property. Divide and Rule strategy. It has never failed over centuries.
      - jelliclesfarm 4y ago
        Why? Why can’t companies create jobs everywhere? Shouldn’t every American city deserve top notch infrastructure that the states only reserves for high density unaffordable cities where jobs are concentrated. Maybe this will force the governments to spend some of our accumulated tax dollars to actually improve public transport and efficiently network cities and towns. Zoning rules exist for a reason. People need infrastructure and water and services and power grids to live well. High density is not desirable nor will it be affordable. It behooves the govt to encourage high density where there are jobs to create artificial scarcity and inflate housing value. Because higher the home value, more property tax can be extracted. This is the oldest con in the world. This is also why all high density cities are all expensive and housing is unaffordable and everything from water to power is expensive and public services are woefully inadequate.
- imtringued 4y ago
  Most LVT proposals usually make concessions to owner occupied housing e.g. tax rebates if it is owner occupied. A citizen's dividend is also effectively a tax exemption for individuals instead of companies.
- 8note 4y ago
  its basically what renters have though, and is considered a "benefit of renting"
nayuki 4y ago
What about land that already has buildings on it? The buyer can't just take the land without the building. So how do you take the building's value into account?
bbbobbb 4y ago
I don't get the joke. So in your scenario people are basically not allowed to own land and the benefit is what?
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  There is no benefit, this is a terrible plan. Marginally shorter cycles before property becomes more useful in exchange for completely fucking over the elderly, marginalized groups, and those without free capital. It's a bonkers bad idea.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > Marginally shorter cycles before property becomes more useful in exchange for completely fucking over the elderly, marginalized groups, and those without free capital. As others point out, most LVT schemes have significantly improved treatment for owner-occupied housing. The big idea here: land value is something that is established publicly and collectively rather than by any individual owner. It makes sense to tax use of this public good to reduce deadweight losses .... instead of primarily taxing improvements which disincents investment and increasing DWL. A land value tax can be expected to reduce the cost of housing. That is, it incentivizes more effective land uses-- as opposed to property taxes that include improvements, which reduce the incentive to build higher densities.
- imtringued 4y ago
  To be fair that idea is worse than auctioning land leases for a fixed period.
horsawlarway 4y ago
My strong suspicion is that this will completely fuck over the elderly and marginalized communities. It also requires property owners to do EXTENSIVE research and information gathering CONSTANTLY to ensure that the number they put down is reasonable. Many of them literally can't (ex: my 87 year old Neighbor Phylis doesn't care what her house is worth, because she plans to die in it, and isn't seeking to maximize utility. Instead she wants to pass peacefully in the house she remembers raising her kids in, and has lived in for the last 50 years. She has no car, is in a wheelchair, and uses basically no online services - how is she going to go evaluate the right value for her house?). --- Basically - this plan sounds great for 5 seconds and then you realize people would literally revolt the second you pass it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mring33621 4y ago
  "It also requires property owners to do EXTENSIVE research and information gathering CONSTANTLY" Every year in Chicago. My house has been, and still is, assessed for 600K over what I paid in Nov. 2021. It had been on the market since 2016, until I bought it. The price I paid is the value of the house. First assessment appeal denied. Second appeal lost in the system. We have to fight against an unfair and arbitrary tax system EVERY year. Now they are going to index the tax rate to inflation. Maybe other communities are under-taxed, but mine is not.
  - allenrb 4y ago
    I’m with you, mring33621. Cook Co. is ridiculous. Bought our home (in 2018) just north of Chicago, out of foreclosure. Taxes jumped far beyond what they’d been trying (and failing) to sell for prior to foreclosure. Similar experience last year with an apartment building being valued at more than twice what I’d paid (in rough condition) in an open, arms length transaction literally months earlier. AFAICT, hiring an attorney is the way to go. Then you still have to pay, but much less overall. I’m about 80% convinced that the tax assessors are in it with the appeal attorneys to almost literally write themselves checks. Not that such misdeeds would ever occur in Chicago/Cook…

by raldi 4y ago

bko 4y ago

That sounds awful. Imagine being forced to move every few years or giving people with money that much power over you. Seems crazy that this idea is so popular. I'm guessing the people who like this idea are very young and mobile. Imagine telling grandma she has to move and sell her house and have police show up at the door when she doesn't want to. It's basically the abuses of eminent domain except done privately.

turbinerneiter 4y ago
What makes you think this idea is popular? I don't even think the author is fully behind it, seemed more like a thought experiment as a reply to grandparent. Regarding grandma: I don't want to kick her out of the house. But there is a real issue here: young families can't find affordable places, while old families live in places, that are too big for them because the kids left. If they rent, they also pay significantly less than the younger family, since they are on older contracts. Once new people move in, rent is raised to the new level. The older people don't want to move out, because they would have to pay more for their new, smaller place, than the old, bigger place. Meanwhile the young family also has to finance the pensions for that old family. Noone is being evil here, but ... it sucks. And every idea to work on it is shut down as being unfair to the people who already own houses. Even building new houses is usually opposed by the people who already have houses in the area. If I never get the chance ever to own one, I don't really feel like I have to protect the interest of house owners.
- jelliclesfarm 4y ago
  Multigenerational families are the answer. Move in with grandma. Problem solved.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    What if grandma lives in a city where there's no jobs for me? Asking people to move in with their relatives is not the answer; the answer is very simple: build more housing. Eliminate zoning rules and start replacing older buildings with new, larger and taller buildings.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      > Eliminate zoning rules and start replacing older buildings with new, larger and taller buildings. Right now, NIMBY tries to prevent taller buildings. A land value tax incentivizes more effective land uses-- as opposed to property taxes that include improvements, which reduce the incentive to build high density.
      - midoridensha 4y ago
        >Right now, NIMBY tries to prevent taller buildings. It's simple: eliminate NIMBYism. It only exists because local governments and laws allow it. Don't do that.
        jelliclesfarm 4y ago
        NIMBYism exists because people value their homes and stability. Any society needs stability to thrive. Without NIMBYs, there would be utter chaos and underfunded overcrowded cities. Housing shortage is due to unions and govts that refuse to establish public infrastructure for everyone. This is done on purpose to create UTism .. Us VS Them..between property owners and those who don’t own property. Divide and Rule strategy. It has never failed over centuries.
    - jelliclesfarm 4y ago
      Why? Why can’t companies create jobs everywhere? Shouldn’t every American city deserve top notch infrastructure that the states only reserves for high density unaffordable cities where jobs are concentrated. Maybe this will force the governments to spend some of our accumulated tax dollars to actually improve public transport and efficiently network cities and towns. Zoning rules exist for a reason. People need infrastructure and water and services and power grids to live well. High density is not desirable nor will it be affordable. It behooves the govt to encourage high density where there are jobs to create artificial scarcity and inflate housing value. Because higher the home value, more property tax can be extracted. This is the oldest con in the world. This is also why all high density cities are all expensive and housing is unaffordable and everything from water to power is expensive and public services are woefully inadequate.
imtringued 4y ago
Most LVT proposals usually make concessions to owner occupied housing e.g. tax rebates if it is owner occupied. A citizen's dividend is also effectively a tax exemption for individuals instead of companies.
8note 4y ago
its basically what renters have though, and is considered a "benefit of renting"

nayuki 4y ago

What about land that already has buildings on it? The buyer can't just take the land without the building. So how do you take the building's value into account?

bbbobbb 4y ago

I don't get the joke. So in your scenario people are basically not allowed to own land and the benefit is what?

horsawlarway 4y ago
There is no benefit, this is a terrible plan. Marginally shorter cycles before property becomes more useful in exchange for completely fucking over the elderly, marginalized groups, and those without free capital. It's a bonkers bad idea.
- mlyle 4y ago
  > Marginally shorter cycles before property becomes more useful in exchange for completely fucking over the elderly, marginalized groups, and those without free capital. As others point out, most LVT schemes have significantly improved treatment for owner-occupied housing. The big idea here: land value is something that is established publicly and collectively rather than by any individual owner. It makes sense to tax use of this public good to reduce deadweight losses .... instead of primarily taxing improvements which disincents investment and increasing DWL. A land value tax can be expected to reduce the cost of housing. That is, it incentivizes more effective land uses-- as opposed to property taxes that include improvements, which reduce the incentive to build higher densities.
imtringued 4y ago
To be fair that idea is worse than auctioning land leases for a fixed period.

horsawlarway 4y ago

My strong suspicion is that this will completely fuck over the elderly and marginalized communities. It also requires property owners to do EXTENSIVE research and information gathering CONSTANTLY to ensure that the number they put down is reasonable. Many of them literally can't (ex: my 87 year old Neighbor Phylis doesn't care what her house is worth, because she plans to die in it, and isn't seeking to maximize utility. Instead she wants to pass peacefully in the house she remembers raising her kids in, and has lived in for the last 50 years. She has no car, is in a wheelchair, and uses basically no online services - how is she going to go evaluate the right value for her house?). --- Basically - this plan sounds great for 5 seconds and then you realize people would literally revolt the second you pass it.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mring33621 4y ago
"It also requires property owners to do EXTENSIVE research and information gathering CONSTANTLY" Every year in Chicago. My house has been, and still is, assessed for 600K over what I paid in Nov. 2021. It had been on the market since 2016, until I bought it. The price I paid is the value of the house. First assessment appeal denied. Second appeal lost in the system. We have to fight against an unfair and arbitrary tax system EVERY year. Now they are going to index the tax rate to inflation. Maybe other communities are under-taxed, but mine is not.
- allenrb 4y ago
  I’m with you, mring33621. Cook Co. is ridiculous. Bought our home (in 2018) just north of Chicago, out of foreclosure. Taxes jumped far beyond what they’d been trying (and failing) to sell for prior to foreclosure. Similar experience last year with an apartment building being valued at more than twice what I’d paid (in rough condition) in an open, arms length transaction literally months earlier. AFAICT, hiring an attorney is the way to go. Then you still have to pay, but much less overall. I’m about 80% convinced that the tax assessors are in it with the appeal attorneys to almost literally write themselves checks. Not that such misdeeds would ever occur in Chicago/Cook…