4 ms·

What? I must be misunderstanding your comment. Are we seriously saying that if someone can no longer afford tax on a land they already own because the rich nee

What? I must be misunderstanding your comment. Are we seriously saying that if someone can no longer afford tax on a land they already own because the rich need to get richer, you should sell? Basically you're asking for normal people to work, get raises forever and hope nothing crazy happens that can raise land value in their neighborhood in order to keep the land they already own. No, this is not in "society's best interest". This is in the capitalist's best interests. Those are very different. Comments like these make me not want to live in this world anymore. I really hope I misunderstood the comment. Edit: removed some unnecessary harsh words.

edgyquant 3y ago
The entire Georgist argument is that you can’t own land, you simply rent it from society via a land tax. It’s also worth noting that George’s land value tax was devised as a way to pay a citizens dividend (the profit gets distributed evenly among all citizens) not to fund a bureaucracy as will happen here.
diffeomorphism 3y ago
> Are we seriously saying that if someone can no longer afford tax on a land they already own because the rich need to get richer, you should sell? devil's advocate: No, not because of the rich but because of the poor. Buying a house decades ago was very possible on an average single person's salary. Nowadays, even upper income range couples have large troubles financing a house. So the situation is that you have lots of old people living in houses that they could never, ever afford at today's prices. The claim (no comment on whether it is correct or not) is that this causes massive distortion and that this proposal would fix it (doubt it, but that is the discussion). > What the f*. That is not helpful for a discussion. There is a problem stated and a (probably bad) proposal to address it. Instead of just saying "f*", address the problem and make a different proposal.
- treis 3y ago
  Homeownership rate has not changed much over the last 60 years. Housing is still affordable overall in the US. It's only some regions that have gone nuts.
- Draiken 3y ago
  > That is not helpful for a discussion. Fair enough. Edited that part off. I was simply extremely shocked at the implications, if I understood it correctly. > So the situation is that you have lots of old people living in houses that they could never, ever afford at today's prices. I don't think punishing people for what companies have done to inflate house prices is a good move though. Screwing over people that bought houses that they live in instead of fixing the root causes for all these insane price hikes seems completely backwards to me. Remember that companies or rich folks might have to pay some extra taxes but, in general, they can freaking afford it. Normal folks more often than not, can't.
  - diffeomorphism 3y ago
    > Screwing over people that bought houses that they live in instead of fixing the root causes The point of the proposal is that it is not an either or. In order to fix things you will have to also "screw over" people that have bought houses or people that currently can't buy houses. Long running problems are not quick and easy to fix and a fix will have collateral damage, not just "companies or rich folk". Again: I am not taking a position on either side, but you are currently attacking a straw man.
  - BoiledCabbage 3y ago
    > I don't think punishing people for what companies have done to inflate house prices is a good move though. The first is that if someone suddenly became wealthy because their house went up 3x in value and they want to continue living there then they can get a reverse mortgage. Assign that new found wealth in the equity to the bank in exchange for getting a monthly payment to pay the tax. If you're arguing they both should be able to stay, and keep the increase in equity that they contributed to them you're arguing housing should be a speculative investment (which leads to bad incentives). > Screwing over people that bought houses that they live in instead of fixing the root causes for all these insane price hikes seems completely backwards to me. The whole point is it's not. It's incentivising someone to move so they stop screwing over the 10-20 families they would like to buy a house but can't afford to because the supply is so low. By replacing the single story home with multi floor condos, more people can now afford homes in the area.
screye 3y ago
It isn't an extra tax. It is a rebalancing tax. The rich have nothing to do with this. It is purely about how much land you sit on and where. That's it. > Basically you're asking for normal people to work, get raises forever Nope, it mostly incentivizes real estate hoarders to start making productive use of there land. It allows normal people to buy houses because this system inventivizes the increase of supply. > land they already own because the rich need to get richer, you should sell? If your lad value tax increases enough to be unpayable, then your house has likely appreciated 3x+. This makes you one of the rich. There are no new houses in the neighborhood so the normal person can't afford a house. With land value tax, you can sell the land, make bank, and allow access to greater housing through upzoning. The normal person benefits greatly. Either housing is an investment or an essential commodity. It can't be both.
- Draiken 3y ago
  > It isn't an extra tax. It is a rebalancing tax. The rich have nothing to do with this. So effectively normal people that don't own empty land will not pay this or pay an equivalent of the previous taxes? > If your lad value tax increases enough to be unpayable, then your house has likely appreciated 3x+. I guess you could try to argue that but I still feel like that's going to hurt folks. Imagine a scenario where I live somewhere for decades. Suddenly there's a new subway or some other factor that increases the value of the land enough that I can't pay for it. Now I'm forced to leave this place when it finally becomes better to live in. In theory if I sold it, it would make me some money, but that's not the same as saying I'm a rich person now. It's also not free in the sense that I still have to move somewhere else, which will probably be worse than the current place I live, since I will be required to buy a house with a lower tax (less valuable). I can see the benefits if this was part of a bigger set of changes that would overall benefit everyone. But in isolation it seems like it will hurt normal folks and companies will just turn their empty plots into useless parking lots (or some other loophole they will find) to say it's "valuable".
  - screye 3y ago
    > I guess you could try to argue that but I still feel like that's going to hurt folks. Imagine a scenario where I live somewhere for decades. Suddenly there's a new subway or some other factor that increases the value of the land enough that I can't pay for it. I can imagine it. That is exactly what happened to my neighborhood in India. Small residential condo community where Dad and I grew up. Everyone knows everyone sort of place. Our neighborhood suddenly turned into the hipster capital of India and began gentrifying and taxes started becoming unaffordable. You know what people did ? Took a deal to have their 5-storey condo redeveloped into a 30 storey one over 3 years. Everyone gets decent upfront cash, a huge rental allowance for the duration of the construction, 2x larger houses and more luxurious amenities. Everyone is falling over themselves to have these deals signed. Yes, people waited till the last generation passed away, since they didn't want huge changes for those in their 80s. But, as those in their 50s-60s are heading into retirement, they are delighted to be able to retire wealthier, in a bigger house for 'free'. The community has not been displaced, since everyone who lives here will still live here. Young families can buy apartments in one of the most accessible parts of town. Quality of life is better for everyone.
alistairSH 3y ago
That can already occur with regular property tax. Some regions have "homesteader" tax relief programs to counteract the problem and I see no reason we couldn't do the same on a land value tax scheme.

edgyquant 3y ago

The entire Georgist argument is that you can’t own land, you simply rent it from society via a land tax. It’s also worth noting that George’s land value tax was devised as a way to pay a citizens dividend (the profit gets distributed evenly among all citizens) not to fund a bureaucracy as will happen here.

diffeomorphism 3y ago

> Are we seriously saying that if someone can no longer afford tax on a land they already own because the rich need to get richer, you should sell? devil's advocate: No, not because of the rich but because of the poor. Buying a house decades ago was very possible on an average single person's salary. Nowadays, even upper income range couples have large troubles financing a house. So the situation is that you have lots of old people living in houses that they could never, ever afford at today's prices. The claim (no comment on whether it is correct or not) is that this causes massive distortion and that this proposal would fix it (doubt it, but that is the discussion). > What the f*. That is not helpful for a discussion. There is a problem stated and a (probably bad) proposal to address it. Instead of just saying "f*", address the problem and make a different proposal.

treis 3y ago
Homeownership rate has not changed much over the last 60 years. Housing is still affordable overall in the US. It's only some regions that have gone nuts.
Draiken 3y ago
> That is not helpful for a discussion. Fair enough. Edited that part off. I was simply extremely shocked at the implications, if I understood it correctly. > So the situation is that you have lots of old people living in houses that they could never, ever afford at today's prices. I don't think punishing people for what companies have done to inflate house prices is a good move though. Screwing over people that bought houses that they live in instead of fixing the root causes for all these insane price hikes seems completely backwards to me. Remember that companies or rich folks might have to pay some extra taxes but, in general, they can freaking afford it. Normal folks more often than not, can't.
- diffeomorphism 3y ago
  > Screwing over people that bought houses that they live in instead of fixing the root causes The point of the proposal is that it is not an either or. In order to fix things you will have to also "screw over" people that have bought houses or people that currently can't buy houses. Long running problems are not quick and easy to fix and a fix will have collateral damage, not just "companies or rich folk". Again: I am not taking a position on either side, but you are currently attacking a straw man.
- BoiledCabbage 3y ago
  > I don't think punishing people for what companies have done to inflate house prices is a good move though. The first is that if someone suddenly became wealthy because their house went up 3x in value and they want to continue living there then they can get a reverse mortgage. Assign that new found wealth in the equity to the bank in exchange for getting a monthly payment to pay the tax. If you're arguing they both should be able to stay, and keep the increase in equity that they contributed to them you're arguing housing should be a speculative investment (which leads to bad incentives). > Screwing over people that bought houses that they live in instead of fixing the root causes for all these insane price hikes seems completely backwards to me. The whole point is it's not. It's incentivising someone to move so they stop screwing over the 10-20 families they would like to buy a house but can't afford to because the supply is so low. By replacing the single story home with multi floor condos, more people can now afford homes in the area.

screye 3y ago

It isn't an extra tax. It is a rebalancing tax. The rich have nothing to do with this. It is purely about how much land you sit on and where. That's it. > Basically you're asking for normal people to work, get raises forever Nope, it mostly incentivizes real estate hoarders to start making productive use of there land. It allows normal people to buy houses because this system inventivizes the increase of supply. > land they already own because the rich need to get richer, you should sell? If your lad value tax increases enough to be unpayable, then your house has likely appreciated 3x+. This makes you one of the rich. There are no new houses in the neighborhood so the normal person can't afford a house. With land value tax, you can sell the land, make bank, and allow access to greater housing through upzoning. The normal person benefits greatly. Either housing is an investment or an essential commodity. It can't be both.

Draiken 3y ago
> It isn't an extra tax. It is a rebalancing tax. The rich have nothing to do with this. So effectively normal people that don't own empty land will not pay this or pay an equivalent of the previous taxes? > If your lad value tax increases enough to be unpayable, then your house has likely appreciated 3x+. I guess you could try to argue that but I still feel like that's going to hurt folks. Imagine a scenario where I live somewhere for decades. Suddenly there's a new subway or some other factor that increases the value of the land enough that I can't pay for it. Now I'm forced to leave this place when it finally becomes better to live in. In theory if I sold it, it would make me some money, but that's not the same as saying I'm a rich person now. It's also not free in the sense that I still have to move somewhere else, which will probably be worse than the current place I live, since I will be required to buy a house with a lower tax (less valuable). I can see the benefits if this was part of a bigger set of changes that would overall benefit everyone. But in isolation it seems like it will hurt normal folks and companies will just turn their empty plots into useless parking lots (or some other loophole they will find) to say it's "valuable".
- screye 3y ago
  > I guess you could try to argue that but I still feel like that's going to hurt folks. Imagine a scenario where I live somewhere for decades. Suddenly there's a new subway or some other factor that increases the value of the land enough that I can't pay for it. I can imagine it. That is exactly what happened to my neighborhood in India. Small residential condo community where Dad and I grew up. Everyone knows everyone sort of place. Our neighborhood suddenly turned into the hipster capital of India and began gentrifying and taxes started becoming unaffordable. You know what people did ? Took a deal to have their 5-storey condo redeveloped into a 30 storey one over 3 years. Everyone gets decent upfront cash, a huge rental allowance for the duration of the construction, 2x larger houses and more luxurious amenities. Everyone is falling over themselves to have these deals signed. Yes, people waited till the last generation passed away, since they didn't want huge changes for those in their 80s. But, as those in their 50s-60s are heading into retirement, they are delighted to be able to retire wealthier, in a bigger house for 'free'. The community has not been displaced, since everyone who lives here will still live here. Young families can buy apartments in one of the most accessible parts of town. Quality of life is better for everyone.

alistairSH 3y ago

That can already occur with regular property tax. Some regions have "homesteader" tax relief programs to counteract the problem and I see no reason we couldn't do the same on a land value tax scheme.