3 ms·

Just some possibly ill-thought out comments: > Unlike income or consumption taxes, an LVT is non-distortionary. It doesn't discourage productive activities lik

Just some possibly ill-thought out comments: > Unlike income or consumption taxes, an LVT is non-distortionary. It doesn't discourage productive activities like work, saving, or investment It's not great for anyone who chose to invest in land based on the current rules, and then the rules change. > Many landowners hold onto vacant or underutilized land as a speculative investment, waiting for its value to increase This is a symptom, not a root problem. > encouraging landowners to develop or sell their land The land may now be worth less than it was, as it has an instant and recurring negative sign attached to it.

jeezfrk 3y ago
a symptom of rent-seeking? speculation... wasteful monopolization and other rotten externalities ARE the problem. and since when are prices of land decreasing suddenly a terrible thing?
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Due to the way you phrase your comments, I'm struggling to pull any neutral points out to respond to. Maybe this one: > and since when are prices of land decreasing suddenly a terrible thing? Because if it decreases, then it will discourage people from selling. You think it will increase selling (and for some reason think that's good); I'm saying that this might counteract that.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    No, if the price of land decreases, it only discourages people from selling if they think that the price will come back some time in the future. A permanent tax change won't make people think that. More: If the tax rate has gone up enough that the price has gone down, then if I hold it, I'm also having to pay the higher taxes year after year. That's going to encourage selling, not discourage it. I don't like Georgism for other reasons, but I think that part will work as advertised.
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      > other reasons What might those be? Can you expand on why you don't "like" it...
      - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        1. The whole thing has a "one weird trick to fix your economy" vibe to it. On that ground alone, it feels like snake oil. (If you want to argue that "vibe" is not an intellectually rigorous criticism, I will admit the truth of that point.) 2. Why land, specifically? Why land only? It's not the 1800s anymore, and land is not either the primary asset or the primary source of wealth. Why single it out as the thing to tax? It feels like a theory stuck in the past. It needs to explain why, in 2023, land is the one thing that should be taxed. I've seen handwaving, but nothing that feels all that solid. (The one argument that has at least some merit is that no more land can be created, unlike everything else. True, but so what? There's a maximum number of bitcoin, but Georgism doesn't say to tax them. Why is land the one magic thing to get taxed?) 3. It is easy for the rich to have a smaller proportion of their assets in land than it is for the middle class. (Unless they rent - and then they wind up getting charged for the tax without having the benefits of owning the land.) LVT - if it's the only tax - means that the rich can easily wind up paying little or no tax. I'm not of the "confiscate all the rich's assets" crowd, but letting them pay almost nothing doesn't sit right with me, either.
        Obscurity4340 3y ago
        Re:2: Why should LABOUR in lieu of land be taxed? What's more Adam-and-Evey than making everyone suffer under the sweat of their brows for the rest of the days or tax the fewer far better resourced landowners and everyone lives happily ever after
        AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        How about we don't pick one thing? How about we pick income, including capital gains, and land, and buildings, and IP? And maybe set the rates low enough that nobody gets crushed?
TMWNN 3y ago
>> Unlike income or consumption taxes, an LVT is non-distortionary. It doesn't discourage productive activities like work, saving, or investment >It's not great for anyone who chose to invest in land based on the current rules, and then the rules change. Taxing land is intended to change current land investment behavior.

jeezfrk 3y ago

a symptom of rent-seeking? speculation... wasteful monopolization and other rotten externalities ARE the problem. and since when are prices of land decreasing suddenly a terrible thing?

robertlagrant 3y ago
Due to the way you phrase your comments, I'm struggling to pull any neutral points out to respond to. Maybe this one: > and since when are prices of land decreasing suddenly a terrible thing? Because if it decreases, then it will discourage people from selling. You think it will increase selling (and for some reason think that's good); I'm saying that this might counteract that.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  No, if the price of land decreases, it only discourages people from selling if they think that the price will come back some time in the future. A permanent tax change won't make people think that. More: If the tax rate has gone up enough that the price has gone down, then if I hold it, I'm also having to pay the higher taxes year after year. That's going to encourage selling, not discourage it. I don't like Georgism for other reasons, but I think that part will work as advertised.
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    > other reasons What might those be? Can you expand on why you don't "like" it...
    - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      1. The whole thing has a "one weird trick to fix your economy" vibe to it. On that ground alone, it feels like snake oil. (If you want to argue that "vibe" is not an intellectually rigorous criticism, I will admit the truth of that point.) 2. Why land, specifically? Why land only? It's not the 1800s anymore, and land is not either the primary asset or the primary source of wealth. Why single it out as the thing to tax? It feels like a theory stuck in the past. It needs to explain why, in 2023, land is the one thing that should be taxed. I've seen handwaving, but nothing that feels all that solid. (The one argument that has at least some merit is that no more land can be created, unlike everything else. True, but so what? There's a maximum number of bitcoin, but Georgism doesn't say to tax them. Why is land the one magic thing to get taxed?) 3. It is easy for the rich to have a smaller proportion of their assets in land than it is for the middle class. (Unless they rent - and then they wind up getting charged for the tax without having the benefits of owning the land.) LVT - if it's the only tax - means that the rich can easily wind up paying little or no tax. I'm not of the "confiscate all the rich's assets" crowd, but letting them pay almost nothing doesn't sit right with me, either.
      - Obscurity4340 3y ago
        Re:2: Why should LABOUR in lieu of land be taxed? What's more Adam-and-Evey than making everyone suffer under the sweat of their brows for the rest of the days or tax the fewer far better resourced landowners and everyone lives happily ever after
        AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        How about we don't pick one thing? How about we pick income, including capital gains, and land, and buildings, and IP? And maybe set the rates low enough that nobody gets crushed?

TMWNN 3y ago

>> Unlike income or consumption taxes, an LVT is non-distortionary. It doesn't discourage productive activities like work, saving, or investment >It's not great for anyone who chose to invest in land based on the current rules, and then the rules change. Taxing land is intended to change current land investment behavior.