6 ms·

There's a list of obvious tax code changes that would immensely improve the current housing, transportation and climate situation: - Land Value Tax - Carbon Ta

There's a list of obvious tax code changes that would immensely improve the current housing, transportation and climate situation: - Land Value Tax - Carbon Tax - Space and weight tax on personal vehicles Of course any of those mean challenging entrenched interests so are deeply unpopular. Hell, even environmentalists hate the carbon tax even though it's THE most effective climate policy. As well as removing the obviously terrible carveouts (light duty truck carveouts to start). An electric F-150 is about the worst personal vehicle imaginable for road wear. We need to encourage people to only use a vehicle of a size they actually need.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jcarrano 3y ago
Carbon tax will make it more expensive to do anything that consumes energy, which is every human activity. Land value tax: you move to a cheap place, some time later its value increases and now you have to pay more tax, why? Tax on personal vehicles: it was EPA mandates that led to the current huge truck situation in the US, so maybe remove those instead of forcing people to pay even more for worse vehicles.
- TremendousJudge 3y ago
  On the land value tax, you have to pay more tax specifically because its value increases. If you want to cash out, then sell the property for it's now much higher value. The value didn't increase because something you did personally, rather because the whole area became more popular due to you and your neighbours (or more usually, your tenants) moving in and being productive. It seems fair that this value that everybody added to your property would get distributed to everybody instead of just you, the owner.
  - Sebb767 3y ago
    And once you cash out, you'll have to pay taxes on the profit you make. A land value tax would make live harder for the people living in their homes, as their CoL increased without them having any new income, while landlords would just increase rent accordingly (and could easily do so, as everyone would increase rent).
    - abdullahkhalids 3y ago
      The solution to all such complaints about property taxes is to have very little tax for people's primary residence, and apply high taxes for all other properties they own. This also has the effect that being a landlord is disincentivized, and property prices have a downward pressure which allows more people to become home owners.
      - nerdkid93 3y ago
        > have very little tax for people's primary residence Homeowners already get crazy tax breaks that our society bears the cost of. This would just be an even bigger shift to funding government services on the backs of renters rather than homeowners, as any increase in taxes that "landlords" are assessed is passed on to renters.
  - singleshot_ 3y ago
    Everyone who helped raise the value deserves a cut; that’s a good point. That does not, however, seem to be a real justification for giving a check to a person a few towns away who does not own any property and who didn’t improve our neighborhood. What’s the justification in your model for giving him a cut?
    - ajmurmann 3y ago
      Copy of my other responder to a parallel comment: There is an opportunity cost for society from every piece of land we cannot use for something new. That's reflected by the value of the land. If the value to the owner is much lower than the value to someone else, we aren't using the land efficiently. It's also unearned income. It's ideal to tax unearned income because you don't create negative incentive for desired activities. It's in essence a tax that comes at no cost to society.
      - singleshot_ 3y ago
        I hear you. Our system is profoundly bad at taxing unrealized gains, though, for some pretty serious reasons. (See also, wealth tax).
        ajmurmann 3y ago
        You are right, to some degree this would be taxing unrealized gains which IMO is generally bad. The important part though is that it's taxing a negative externality (the opportunity cost for society).
- nerdkid93 3y ago
  > which is every human activity A lot of human activities don't use that much energy in the grand scheme of things. Playing board games, walking around a neighborhood, going to concerts or shows at the theater, these are all things that use very little energy when compared to heavy manufacturing, transportation, and most agriculture. Since most humans will bear the costs of climate change as it begins to destroy our past investments, I think it's fairly reasonable to fix that damage based on how much carbon activities generate. > now you have to pay more tax I mean I buy a cheap stock and it's value goes up, why should I have to pay tax on that too!? The value of the land has gone up because it has more amenities and benefits as well. If you feel you are not benefiting from the increased investment around your land, then you should sell it so it can be put to better use. > it was EPA mandates Correction: it was the exemptions from EPA mandates that created the huge truck situation. The fix would be to remove the exemptions for "light trucks"
  - ajmurmann 3y ago
    > you should sell it so it can be put to better use. This is the key point! There is an opportunity cost for society from every piece of land we cannot use for something new. That's reflected by the value of the land. If the value to the owner is much lower than the value to someone else, we aren't using the land efficiently. It's also unearned income. It's ideal to tax unearned income because you don't create negative incentive for desired activities. It's in essence a tax that comes at no cost to society.
- gretch 3y ago
  > you move to a cheap place, some time later its value increases and now you have to pay more tax, why? This is already true for most implementations of property tax (at least in the US). You get reassessed and then pay tax based on the new value. The group that has tried hardest to mitigate probably is California with prop 13, and even that can only limit property tax increases to 2% per year. When we study that we see that it can always happen just because inflation is a background force in play. And then also, look at all the wonky side effects that take place when you try to prevent this from happening.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Carbon tax will force people to confront the true costs of the things they do. It should be implemented with a dividend so only people who pollute more than average end up losing money. The idea behind LVT is basically that the most morally acceptable way for the government to raise money is by owning all of society's land and renting it out at full value to citizens. There are many reasons for this, can be read here https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progress-and-poverty https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr... but the answer to your question is "because the land belongs to the people and you're just renting it from them, so you have to pay more as the value increases" CAFE should be fixed but that's not enough
- amadeuspagel 3y ago
  > Land value tax: you move to a cheap place, some time later its value increases and now you have to pay more tax, why? This is already true for rent.
robertlagrant 3y ago
> We need to encourage people to only use a vehicle of a size they actually need. Social engineering is generally bad. We don't need to do this, because people should decide for themselves what they need.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  Who are "we" in this scenario? Over the last 70 years the United States has undergone an extreme course of social engineering whereby every aspect of our lives was re-centered around the car. That could never have happened without government powers and subsidies.
  - IX-103 3y ago
    Yep. J-walking laws were completely promoted by car manufacturers since pedestrians got in the way of drivers. Basically pushing everything that was not a car off of the roads.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      How so? What about bikes, motorbikes, buses and trolleybuses? (Brit; don't know the rules.)
  - Aerroon 3y ago
    I think it would've happened regardless. Cars took over the entire world. Even in places where everything is close-by it's abnormal and limiting to not have access to a car.
    - olddustytrail 3y ago
      No, that's wrong. In London for example, 46% of households do not have a car.
      - Aerroon 3y ago
        But they can go rent a car easily. Or they have a friend/family member that they can borrow a car from. And 46% already means that it's not the norm to not own a car.
standardUser 3y ago
> even environmentalists hate the carbon tax That's not remotely true. The Sierra Club and the NRDC are both broadly supportive of carbon taxes, for example.
- intrasight 3y ago
  My understanding is that the consensus across both environmentalists and economists is that a carbon tax is the only real option. The challenge is in the implementation. Personally I don't see it happening until our AI machine overlords impose it upon an irrational species.
iinnPP 3y ago
Carbon tax is THE solution when you have a great job and disposable income. It's easy, doesn't require you to change, and most importantly it gives the government more money to spend. I don't believe most people appreciate the changes we (99.999%[1]) need to be committing to, indefinitely, to actually do something to reverse our impact on the planet. Carbon tax isn't a solution. Feel free to come up to Canada and see how well it's working. Our iceberg lettuce is up to 7$/ea except for the 10% we get from California. The other ~90% is from predominantly Ontario green houses, all of which are being hammered by the Federal carbon taxes(Provincial are already carved out). [1] made up On the topic of vehicle weight based taxes, I strongly agree. Family size to passenger count(sum of all family owned vehicles of all kinds) being another good one to target.
- HDMI_Cable 3y ago
  Personally, that's why I think a Cap and Trade program is better than a Carbon tax. You're reducing the effect on lower-income people (who aren't directly exposed to increased prices caused by the tax), you incentivize innovation (so that companies don't have to buy carbon trades), and you can reduce emissions targets based on your stated goals (i.e., you can automatically reduce emissions by lowering the cap). > Our iceberg lettuce is up to 7$/ea except for the 10% we get from California. The other ~90% is from predominantly Ontario green houses, all of which are being hammered by the Federal carbon taxes(Provincial are already carved out). To be fair, this is the doing of the Ford government. Ontario had a cap-and-trade program under Kathleen Wynne (however bad she may be), which the Ford government scrapped for no apparent reason. By law, the federal government had to step in and implement a carbon tax, which Ford knew in advance. This increase is purely due to his government.
- hammock 3y ago
  Why do we talk about a "carbon tax" when it ought to be a fossil fuels tax? The carbon cycle was fine until we started digging oil and gas out of the ground and burning them
  - ajmurmann 3y ago
    Maybe it's a worthwhile tradeoff to use fossil fuels in one place and make up for it by sequestering carbon elsewhere. There are also other things that create massive carbon emissions. Cement is the most prominent I know of by adding 8% of global carbon emissions (https://psci.princeton.edu/tips/2020/11/3/cement-and-concrete-the-environmental-impact https://psci.princeton.edu/tips/2020/11/3/cement-and-concret...)
alphanullmeric 3y ago
No, “environmentalists” hate carbon taxes because it would force them to pay their fair share. An easy way to spot a fake environmentalist is to ask if they intend on taxing proportionally to environmental damage or income, and if those tax dollars will be spent on the environment or government services.
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  This is definitely true for some self-described environmentalists, but probably not the ones who actually are activists. When gas prices were high during the pandemic I mentioned how awesome this is to people who usually worry about climate change, but only a small minority shared my enthusiasm and the rest was incredulous how I could be excited about high gas prices. (I genuinely was excited)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jcarrano 3y ago

Carbon tax will make it more expensive to do anything that consumes energy, which is every human activity. Land value tax: you move to a cheap place, some time later its value increases and now you have to pay more tax, why? Tax on personal vehicles: it was EPA mandates that led to the current huge truck situation in the US, so maybe remove those instead of forcing people to pay even more for worse vehicles.

TremendousJudge 3y ago
On the land value tax, you have to pay more tax specifically because its value increases. If you want to cash out, then sell the property for it's now much higher value. The value didn't increase because something you did personally, rather because the whole area became more popular due to you and your neighbours (or more usually, your tenants) moving in and being productive. It seems fair that this value that everybody added to your property would get distributed to everybody instead of just you, the owner.
- Sebb767 3y ago
  And once you cash out, you'll have to pay taxes on the profit you make. A land value tax would make live harder for the people living in their homes, as their CoL increased without them having any new income, while landlords would just increase rent accordingly (and could easily do so, as everyone would increase rent).
  - abdullahkhalids 3y ago
    The solution to all such complaints about property taxes is to have very little tax for people's primary residence, and apply high taxes for all other properties they own. This also has the effect that being a landlord is disincentivized, and property prices have a downward pressure which allows more people to become home owners.
    - nerdkid93 3y ago
      > have very little tax for people's primary residence Homeowners already get crazy tax breaks that our society bears the cost of. This would just be an even bigger shift to funding government services on the backs of renters rather than homeowners, as any increase in taxes that "landlords" are assessed is passed on to renters.
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  Everyone who helped raise the value deserves a cut; that’s a good point. That does not, however, seem to be a real justification for giving a check to a person a few towns away who does not own any property and who didn’t improve our neighborhood. What’s the justification in your model for giving him a cut?
  - ajmurmann 3y ago
    Copy of my other responder to a parallel comment: There is an opportunity cost for society from every piece of land we cannot use for something new. That's reflected by the value of the land. If the value to the owner is much lower than the value to someone else, we aren't using the land efficiently. It's also unearned income. It's ideal to tax unearned income because you don't create negative incentive for desired activities. It's in essence a tax that comes at no cost to society.
    - singleshot_ 3y ago
      I hear you. Our system is profoundly bad at taxing unrealized gains, though, for some pretty serious reasons. (See also, wealth tax).
      - ajmurmann 3y ago
        You are right, to some degree this would be taxing unrealized gains which IMO is generally bad. The important part though is that it's taxing a negative externality (the opportunity cost for society).
nerdkid93 3y ago
> which is every human activity A lot of human activities don't use that much energy in the grand scheme of things. Playing board games, walking around a neighborhood, going to concerts or shows at the theater, these are all things that use very little energy when compared to heavy manufacturing, transportation, and most agriculture. Since most humans will bear the costs of climate change as it begins to destroy our past investments, I think it's fairly reasonable to fix that damage based on how much carbon activities generate. > now you have to pay more tax I mean I buy a cheap stock and it's value goes up, why should I have to pay tax on that too!? The value of the land has gone up because it has more amenities and benefits as well. If you feel you are not benefiting from the increased investment around your land, then you should sell it so it can be put to better use. > it was EPA mandates Correction: it was the exemptions from EPA mandates that created the huge truck situation. The fix would be to remove the exemptions for "light trucks"
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  > you should sell it so it can be put to better use. This is the key point! There is an opportunity cost for society from every piece of land we cannot use for something new. That's reflected by the value of the land. If the value to the owner is much lower than the value to someone else, we aren't using the land efficiently. It's also unearned income. It's ideal to tax unearned income because you don't create negative incentive for desired activities. It's in essence a tax that comes at no cost to society.
gretch 3y ago
> you move to a cheap place, some time later its value increases and now you have to pay more tax, why? This is already true for most implementations of property tax (at least in the US). You get reassessed and then pay tax based on the new value. The group that has tried hardest to mitigate probably is California with prop 13, and even that can only limit property tax increases to 2% per year. When we study that we see that it can always happen just because inflation is a background force in play. And then also, look at all the wonky side effects that take place when you try to prevent this from happening.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
Carbon tax will force people to confront the true costs of the things they do. It should be implemented with a dividend so only people who pollute more than average end up losing money. The idea behind LVT is basically that the most morally acceptable way for the government to raise money is by owning all of society's land and renting it out at full value to citizens. There are many reasons for this, can be read here https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progress-and-poverty https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr... but the answer to your question is "because the land belongs to the people and you're just renting it from them, so you have to pay more as the value increases" CAFE should be fixed but that's not enough
amadeuspagel 3y ago
> Land value tax: you move to a cheap place, some time later its value increases and now you have to pay more tax, why? This is already true for rent.

robertlagrant 3y ago

> We need to encourage people to only use a vehicle of a size they actually need. Social engineering is generally bad. We don't need to do this, because people should decide for themselves what they need.

jeffbee 3y ago
Who are "we" in this scenario? Over the last 70 years the United States has undergone an extreme course of social engineering whereby every aspect of our lives was re-centered around the car. That could never have happened without government powers and subsidies.
- IX-103 3y ago
  Yep. J-walking laws were completely promoted by car manufacturers since pedestrians got in the way of drivers. Basically pushing everything that was not a car off of the roads.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    How so? What about bikes, motorbikes, buses and trolleybuses? (Brit; don't know the rules.)
- Aerroon 3y ago
  I think it would've happened regardless. Cars took over the entire world. Even in places where everything is close-by it's abnormal and limiting to not have access to a car.
  - olddustytrail 3y ago
    No, that's wrong. In London for example, 46% of households do not have a car.
    - Aerroon 3y ago
      But they can go rent a car easily. Or they have a friend/family member that they can borrow a car from. And 46% already means that it's not the norm to not own a car.

standardUser 3y ago

> even environmentalists hate the carbon tax That's not remotely true. The Sierra Club and the NRDC are both broadly supportive of carbon taxes, for example.

intrasight 3y ago
My understanding is that the consensus across both environmentalists and economists is that a carbon tax is the only real option. The challenge is in the implementation. Personally I don't see it happening until our AI machine overlords impose it upon an irrational species.

iinnPP 3y ago

Carbon tax is THE solution when you have a great job and disposable income. It's easy, doesn't require you to change, and most importantly it gives the government more money to spend. I don't believe most people appreciate the changes we (99.999%[1]) need to be committing to, indefinitely, to actually do something to reverse our impact on the planet. Carbon tax isn't a solution. Feel free to come up to Canada and see how well it's working. Our iceberg lettuce is up to 7$/ea except for the 10% we get from California. The other ~90% is from predominantly Ontario green houses, all of which are being hammered by the Federal carbon taxes(Provincial are already carved out). [1] made up On the topic of vehicle weight based taxes, I strongly agree. Family size to passenger count(sum of all family owned vehicles of all kinds) being another good one to target.

HDMI_Cable 3y ago
Personally, that's why I think a Cap and Trade program is better than a Carbon tax. You're reducing the effect on lower-income people (who aren't directly exposed to increased prices caused by the tax), you incentivize innovation (so that companies don't have to buy carbon trades), and you can reduce emissions targets based on your stated goals (i.e., you can automatically reduce emissions by lowering the cap). > Our iceberg lettuce is up to 7$/ea except for the 10% we get from California. The other ~90% is from predominantly Ontario green houses, all of which are being hammered by the Federal carbon taxes(Provincial are already carved out). To be fair, this is the doing of the Ford government. Ontario had a cap-and-trade program under Kathleen Wynne (however bad she may be), which the Ford government scrapped for no apparent reason. By law, the federal government had to step in and implement a carbon tax, which Ford knew in advance. This increase is purely due to his government.
hammock 3y ago
Why do we talk about a "carbon tax" when it ought to be a fossil fuels tax? The carbon cycle was fine until we started digging oil and gas out of the ground and burning them
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  Maybe it's a worthwhile tradeoff to use fossil fuels in one place and make up for it by sequestering carbon elsewhere. There are also other things that create massive carbon emissions. Cement is the most prominent I know of by adding 8% of global carbon emissions (https://psci.princeton.edu/tips/2020/11/3/cement-and-concrete-the-environmental-impact https://psci.princeton.edu/tips/2020/11/3/cement-and-concret...)

alphanullmeric 3y ago

No, “environmentalists” hate carbon taxes because it would force them to pay their fair share. An easy way to spot a fake environmentalist is to ask if they intend on taxing proportionally to environmental damage or income, and if those tax dollars will be spent on the environment or government services.

ajmurmann 3y ago
This is definitely true for some self-described environmentalists, but probably not the ones who actually are activists. When gas prices were high during the pandemic I mentioned how awesome this is to people who usually worry about climate change, but only a small minority shared my enthusiasm and the rest was incredulous how I could be excited about high gas prices. (I genuinely was excited)