23 ms·

Land value taxes. Wean people off real estate as an investment into real estate as a liability.

hanniabu 4y ago
That's pretty hostile against conservationists that own property to save habitats rather than churn a profit. This will inevitably lead to this land winding up in the hands of a capitalist that will destroy it in order to make money on it.
- metacritic12 4y ago
  Let the people through governments declare property as parks or preserves. This "conversationalist" approach is what NIMBYs hide behind. We can't build in Las Vegas because of a tortoise species. We can't go beyond N levels due to "conserving" the history of a district. Let the public (ideally across a broad area like a state or country) decide what areas need to be conserved for habitats. Don't let private land trusts / conservationlists be the mask that NIMBYs hide behind.
- kec 4y ago
  If something is truly valuable to protect it should be done by the government (who can simply nope out of LVT for the plot) rather than some random jerk (or who's kids) that might change their mind.
  - shswkna 4y ago
    Your argument doesn’t hold up. A government can change its mind and priorities too. The diversity of right holders (private, government etc) over land ensures some good prevails through various political, social or economic circumstances.
    - kec 4y ago
      Well, it's held up for ~150 years in the form of our national parks just fine. That aside, the point here is that if something is being held for the common good, it should be held in common. "The Government" isn't a perfect check or steward, but there's actual accountably there, something which does not exist at all in the case of private ownership.
  - hanniabu 4y ago
    The same government that undoes protections so resources on the land can be mined? You must have a very utopian vision of government that doesn't align with reality.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  Hard to say how it would all shake out. I believe one of the benefits of a land value tax is that it incentivizes maximizing utility:space and denser living as a result. Put a skyscraper in the place of a McMansion and you've got a whole lot of people sharing that land tax burden. So, fundamentally it should result in more wild spaces. Of course, it would be a change from the existing setup, resulting in a different layout, so some ecosystems might be damaged and "replaced" by worse ones. One would hope that, if a big change like this were to occur, it would be paired with some support to protect existing habitats.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  Tiny use case, easily solved with a tax credit.
the_optimist 4y ago
If I understand correctly, you're proposing to add a cost to owning the property, which will either raise the total expense or shift the value of the property from the owner to a government. How is this supposed to un-break the housing market?
- parkingrift 4y ago
  Not OP, and I doubt it will work, but the idea is to eliminate property investment and return homes exclusively to people who own them to live in them.
  - the_optimist 4y ago
    Maybe tax investment properties at an elevated rate? I'm all for home ownership, but the proposed policy doesn't seem compatible with owner-occupied home ownership.
    - rapind 4y ago
      Not sure if it’s the same in the states (but I suspect it is), but in Canada, if your primary residence doubles in value and you sell it, you don’t have to pay tax on that investment income. However you would pay tax on all other investment income (real estate or stocks etc.). This is an exception to the tax rule and it’s a significant factor behind house prices (artificially low interest rates, and supply being other causes). It actually became a “smart” investment to over leverage for a primary residence because it’s a tax free investment that outperformed interest rates and other taxed investments.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      It is compatible with that. It's not compatible wih the strange religious belief that homeowners should be handed free money from the government at the expense of everyone else, including their own children, for not doing anything socially useful. That's the root problem, but it'll take a while to fix, because people like getting free money at the expense of other people as long as there's enough hoops to jump through that they feel like they deserve it, even when they don't, and enough hoops for them to not click that they are everybody else's "other people" and probably losing on the deal overall.
kansface 4y ago
Turning the chief asset for retirement for the retiring crowd into a liability is a non-starter. Excluding them would be an enormous wealth transfer in their favor.
- itsoktocry 4y ago
  >Turning the chief asset for retirement for the retiring crowd into a liability is a non-starter. This is a bug not a feature (but yes, is a problem).
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  It already is a massive wealth transfer to them. The question is what's the political will to put a stop to increasing it further before it collapses society. It's basically "inflation that affects you less the more property you own" and people seem aware that inflation can collapse societies if not tamed. A counter-balancing wealth transfer like a UBI or some kind of pension scheme for people not yet retired that ties into the tax raised from land would work. But we'll bumble into it step by step as usual, no point rushing to create a better world when we can keep making it worse for a few decades.
- BeetleB 4y ago
  > Excluding them would be an enormous wealth transfer in their favor. A temporary one. Ensure only people over a certain age who own land are excluded, and only while they are alive. Once they die (or sell), the inheritors/new owners are not excluded. And ensure you can't make it perpetual by placing it into a trust.

That's pretty hostile against conservationists that own property to save habitats rather than churn a profit. This will inevitably lead to this land winding up in the hands of a capitalist that will destroy it in order to make money on it.

metacritic12 4y ago
Let the people through governments declare property as parks or preserves. This "conversationalist" approach is what NIMBYs hide behind. We can't build in Las Vegas because of a tortoise species. We can't go beyond N levels due to "conserving" the history of a district. Let the public (ideally across a broad area like a state or country) decide what areas need to be conserved for habitats. Don't let private land trusts / conservationlists be the mask that NIMBYs hide behind.
kec 4y ago
If something is truly valuable to protect it should be done by the government (who can simply nope out of LVT for the plot) rather than some random jerk (or who's kids) that might change their mind.
- shswkna 4y ago
  Your argument doesn’t hold up. A government can change its mind and priorities too. The diversity of right holders (private, government etc) over land ensures some good prevails through various political, social or economic circumstances.
  - kec 4y ago
    Well, it's held up for ~150 years in the form of our national parks just fine. That aside, the point here is that if something is being held for the common good, it should be held in common. "The Government" isn't a perfect check or steward, but there's actual accountably there, something which does not exist at all in the case of private ownership.
- hanniabu 4y ago
  The same government that undoes protections so resources on the land can be mined? You must have a very utopian vision of government that doesn't align with reality.
bee_rider 4y ago
Hard to say how it would all shake out. I believe one of the benefits of a land value tax is that it incentivizes maximizing utility:space and denser living as a result. Put a skyscraper in the place of a McMansion and you've got a whole lot of people sharing that land tax burden. So, fundamentally it should result in more wild spaces. Of course, it would be a change from the existing setup, resulting in a different layout, so some ecosystems might be damaged and "replaced" by worse ones. One would hope that, if a big change like this were to occur, it would be paired with some support to protect existing habitats.
oneoff786 4y ago
Tiny use case, easily solved with a tax credit.

the_optimist 4y ago

If I understand correctly, you're proposing to add a cost to owning the property, which will either raise the total expense or shift the value of the property from the owner to a government. How is this supposed to un-break the housing market?

parkingrift 4y ago
Not OP, and I doubt it will work, but the idea is to eliminate property investment and return homes exclusively to people who own them to live in them.
- the_optimist 4y ago
  Maybe tax investment properties at an elevated rate? I'm all for home ownership, but the proposed policy doesn't seem compatible with owner-occupied home ownership.
  - rapind 4y ago
    Not sure if it’s the same in the states (but I suspect it is), but in Canada, if your primary residence doubles in value and you sell it, you don’t have to pay tax on that investment income. However you would pay tax on all other investment income (real estate or stocks etc.). This is an exception to the tax rule and it’s a significant factor behind house prices (artificially low interest rates, and supply being other causes). It actually became a “smart” investment to over leverage for a primary residence because it’s a tax free investment that outperformed interest rates and other taxed investments.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    It is compatible with that. It's not compatible wih the strange religious belief that homeowners should be handed free money from the government at the expense of everyone else, including their own children, for not doing anything socially useful. That's the root problem, but it'll take a while to fix, because people like getting free money at the expense of other people as long as there's enough hoops to jump through that they feel like they deserve it, even when they don't, and enough hoops for them to not click that they are everybody else's "other people" and probably losing on the deal overall.

kansface 4y ago

Turning the chief asset for retirement for the retiring crowd into a liability is a non-starter. Excluding them would be an enormous wealth transfer in their favor.

itsoktocry 4y ago
>Turning the chief asset for retirement for the retiring crowd into a liability is a non-starter. This is a bug not a feature (but yes, is a problem).
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
It already is a massive wealth transfer to them. The question is what's the political will to put a stop to increasing it further before it collapses society. It's basically "inflation that affects you less the more property you own" and people seem aware that inflation can collapse societies if not tamed. A counter-balancing wealth transfer like a UBI or some kind of pension scheme for people not yet retired that ties into the tax raised from land would work. But we'll bumble into it step by step as usual, no point rushing to create a better world when we can keep making it worse for a few decades.
BeetleB 4y ago
> Excluding them would be an enormous wealth transfer in their favor. A temporary one. Ensure only people over a certain age who own land are excluded, and only while they are alive. Once they die (or sell), the inheritors/new owners are not excluded. And ensure you can't make it perpetual by placing it into a trust.