5 ms·

land value tax is an efficient tax. No need to arbitrarily ban people from using debt. if by build smaller houses you mean make it legal and easy to do, yeah. a

land value tax is an efficient tax. No need to arbitrarily ban people from using debt. if by build smaller houses you mean make it legal and easy to do, yeah. also if the government is directly building them and selling them. but don't throw yet more requirements at developers.

thinkerswell 3y ago
It’s not arbitrary; it’s based off of the Jubilee principal and is meant as a way of keeping men out of debt slavery.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  7 years isn’t arbitrary? Jubilees are 50 years, which is also arbitrary. I don’t like the culture of huge debt either, but pretending solutions like this aren’t arbitrary is ridiculous. We have bankruptcy to prevent debt slavery (except for student loans in the US). We have LVT to prevent speculative bubbles, we just need to implement it.
  - thinkerswell 3y ago
    Sorry meant more Deuteronomy 15 and the cancelling of debts after 7 years. Bankruptcy screws the lender whereas a land value tax continues a tax on land which the poorest who inherit land can’t pay. If your debt was going to be cancelled after 7 years you’d of course not make a loan longer than that.
    - brutusborn 3y ago
      I don’t class a person who inherits land as ‘the poorest.’ In reality, truly poor people are forced to pay income tax which I think is immoral. Most parts of the world had long periods where income taxes where nonexistent. We can do the same with LVT and get the added benefits of less property speculation! Not to mention reducing distortionary effects of income taxes. I agree no one would make a loan longer than 7 years under that policy, but I don’t think that would be good for anyone but the richest in society.
      - thinkerswell 3y ago
        In our system already the poorest pay no income tax. If their father gives them a piece of land, now they have to “pay to own” it, what about the recipients who are barely making it? Agreed that income tax is bad, but not just for the poor; but also land tax is bad. Tariffs or some sort of luxury sales tax would be better. Also reducing the size and scope of govt, but that’s another can of worms. In any case, it’s been nice but I’ll leave the last word to you.
        brutusborn 3y ago
        I’m not sure what system you are in, but in the US and Aus people pay tax on very low incomes. Look up the tax free threshold in Australia, it’s almost impossible to live on that income. If you can’t afford the LVT, you can either rent the land or sell the land. Both are better for the economy than people sitting on idle land doing nothing of value. In this case I would focus on those barely making it who have no property, and whos taxes effectively make landholder’s assets more valuable through gov infrastructure spending. Tariffs and luxury taxes have the same problems: they distort markets and in the case of tariffs, make goods more expensive which makes life harder for poorer people. Luxury taxes aren’t significant enough to be very useful, but could be useful in addition to LVT.
        TheCleric 3y ago
        The standard deduction from the IRS is pretty darn close to a full time job at minimum wage. So some people on very low incomes do pay no tax.
        brutusborn 3y ago
        Standard Deduction is $13,850 https://www.forbes.com/advisor/taxes/standard-deduction/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/taxes/standard-deduction/ This is below the poverty level of $14,580. No-one should be taxed on income anywhere near that level. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fpl.asp#:~:text=Key%20Takeaways,%2C%20shelter%2C%20and%20other%20necessities https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fpl.asp#:~:text=Key%20T.... Federal minimum wage is $15,080. I may be missing something, but I believe this means people on minimum wage are being taxed! https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/state-minimum-wage#:~:text=Minimum%20wage%20is%20the%20lowest,year%20for%20full%2Dtime%20workers https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/state-minimum-....

thinkerswell 3y ago

It’s not arbitrary; it’s based off of the Jubilee principal and is meant as a way of keeping men out of debt slavery.

brutusborn 3y ago
7 years isn’t arbitrary? Jubilees are 50 years, which is also arbitrary. I don’t like the culture of huge debt either, but pretending solutions like this aren’t arbitrary is ridiculous. We have bankruptcy to prevent debt slavery (except for student loans in the US). We have LVT to prevent speculative bubbles, we just need to implement it.
- thinkerswell 3y ago
  Sorry meant more Deuteronomy 15 and the cancelling of debts after 7 years. Bankruptcy screws the lender whereas a land value tax continues a tax on land which the poorest who inherit land can’t pay. If your debt was going to be cancelled after 7 years you’d of course not make a loan longer than that.
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    I don’t class a person who inherits land as ‘the poorest.’ In reality, truly poor people are forced to pay income tax which I think is immoral. Most parts of the world had long periods where income taxes where nonexistent. We can do the same with LVT and get the added benefits of less property speculation! Not to mention reducing distortionary effects of income taxes. I agree no one would make a loan longer than 7 years under that policy, but I don’t think that would be good for anyone but the richest in society.
    - thinkerswell 3y ago
      In our system already the poorest pay no income tax. If their father gives them a piece of land, now they have to “pay to own” it, what about the recipients who are barely making it? Agreed that income tax is bad, but not just for the poor; but also land tax is bad. Tariffs or some sort of luxury sales tax would be better. Also reducing the size and scope of govt, but that’s another can of worms. In any case, it’s been nice but I’ll leave the last word to you.
      - brutusborn 3y ago
        I’m not sure what system you are in, but in the US and Aus people pay tax on very low incomes. Look up the tax free threshold in Australia, it’s almost impossible to live on that income. If you can’t afford the LVT, you can either rent the land or sell the land. Both are better for the economy than people sitting on idle land doing nothing of value. In this case I would focus on those barely making it who have no property, and whos taxes effectively make landholder’s assets more valuable through gov infrastructure spending. Tariffs and luxury taxes have the same problems: they distort markets and in the case of tariffs, make goods more expensive which makes life harder for poorer people. Luxury taxes aren’t significant enough to be very useful, but could be useful in addition to LVT.
        TheCleric 3y ago
        The standard deduction from the IRS is pretty darn close to a full time job at minimum wage. So some people on very low incomes do pay no tax.
        brutusborn 3y ago
        Standard Deduction is $13,850 https://www.forbes.com/advisor/taxes/standard-deduction/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/taxes/standard-deduction/ This is below the poverty level of $14,580. No-one should be taxed on income anywhere near that level. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fpl.asp#:~:text=Key%20Takeaways,%2C%20shelter%2C%20and%20other%20necessities https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fpl.asp#:~:text=Key%20T.... Federal minimum wage is $15,080. I may be missing something, but I believe this means people on minimum wage are being taxed! https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/state-minimum-wage#:~:text=Minimum%20wage%20is%20the%20lowest,year%20for%20full%2Dtime%20workers https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/state-minimum-....