5 ms·

If the goal is to use the land better, making the very very rich pay a tax for using it badly is not a great idea. They will pay the tax, and use the land, and

by biztos 3y ago

If the goal is to use the land better, making the very very rich pay a tax for using it badly is not a great idea. They will pay the tax, and use the land, and the city will have exactly the same problem as before, but with some more money that disappears into the “general fund.”

stale2002 3y ago
> They will pay the tax, and use the land Wait, that's amazing then. It means that the city can get money from them completely for free with no downside. They can just keep increasing it, they will keep paying, and all fitt budget issues will be solved forever!
- tourmalinetaco 3y ago
  > and all fitt budget issues will be solved forever! Until, of course, it’s pocketed just like most tax money.
  - cosmojg 3y ago
    Whose pocket?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > It means that the city can get money from them completely for free with no downside. Let's apply this argument to the use of a head tax. Everybody pays the same amount unconditionally with no way to avoid it, so it's free money with no downside?
  - stale2002 3y ago
    > Let's apply this argument to the use of a head tax. Everybody pays the same amount unconditionally with no way to avoid it, so it's free money with no downside? No there is a downside to that. The downside is one of redistributionary effect of having a flat tax. IE it negatively effects poor people more. Thats a separate and unrelated downside to the other example. This example isn't that though. The hypothetical that the other person gave, was that we could engage in taxing wealthy people and it would have zero deadweight loss (as in, those wealthy people apparently keep using the land exactly the same amount as they were before). This would indeed be a free win, in economics. Usually, the problem in economics of taxing wealthy people is that it puts a disincentive on productive work. This is called deadweight loss. But in this other crazy hypothetical, we can get tax dollars infinitely for free from only wealthy people! Amazing!
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > The downside is one of redistributionary effect of having a flat tax. IE it negatively effects poor people more. To affect poor people more it would have to be affecting people. I thought it was free money because it doesn't put a disincentive on productive work? > The hypothetical that the other person gave, was that we could engage in taxing wealthy people and it would have zero deadweight loss (as in, those wealthy people apparently keep using the land exactly the same amount as they were before). They might keep using the land in the same way, but that doesn't tell you anything about how they were using the money. They could intend to donate it to a charity or use it for some economically productive activity and the government may or may not be able to put it to a more productive use. US legislators' track record on monetary efficiency is rather humiliating.
      - stale2002 3y ago
        > I thought it was free money because it doesn't put a disincentive on productive work There are 2 major and unrelated effects to taxes that are discussed in any basic economics 101 theory that I am happen to explain to you. Sorry, I take a lot of basic econ theory for granted, even though I am sure most people haven't taken an introductory economics class. Thus leading to confusion. effect 1: Changes to behavior/Disincentives on work. IE deadweight loss. effect 2: the redistributionary effects of the taxes. IE does it harm poor people or not. These are unrelated effects and are separate effects/downsides/benefits. Do you understand how there can be 2 effects to a thing that happens, effect 1 which is bad, and that there can be a different effect 2 which is also bad in a different way? You saying "Well what about this policy B that doesn't have downside number 1?!? Are you saying that there is nothing bad to policy B?!? Because you said that policy A was fine because it doesn't have downside 1? Therefore it must be that policy B is good because it also doesn't have downside 1." The completely obvious counter response to this bad point is that policy B, which is different than policy A, has an additional downside which is downside number 2. And policy A is good because it has neither downside 1 or downside 2. Does that explain the misunderstanding that is apparent from your comment? The fact that you brought up a head tax also betrays the point. Because you know that a head tax is bad, otherwise you wouldn't have used it as an example. You know that it isn't the same. Although it still confuses me that you would bring it up, because you didn't jump to step 2 which is to explain the difference between the 2 policies. And the next question, that actually matters, is the clear different between a head tax and a land tax. Which is explainable via basic economic theory.

by biztos 3y ago

stale2002 3y ago

> They will pay the tax, and use the land Wait, that's amazing then. It means that the city can get money from them completely for free with no downside. They can just keep increasing it, they will keep paying, and all fitt budget issues will be solved forever!

tourmalinetaco 3y ago
> and all fitt budget issues will be solved forever! Until, of course, it’s pocketed just like most tax money.
- cosmojg 3y ago
  Whose pocket?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> It means that the city can get money from them completely for free with no downside. Let's apply this argument to the use of a head tax. Everybody pays the same amount unconditionally with no way to avoid it, so it's free money with no downside?
- stale2002 3y ago
  > Let's apply this argument to the use of a head tax. Everybody pays the same amount unconditionally with no way to avoid it, so it's free money with no downside? No there is a downside to that. The downside is one of redistributionary effect of having a flat tax. IE it negatively effects poor people more. Thats a separate and unrelated downside to the other example. This example isn't that though. The hypothetical that the other person gave, was that we could engage in taxing wealthy people and it would have zero deadweight loss (as in, those wealthy people apparently keep using the land exactly the same amount as they were before). This would indeed be a free win, in economics. Usually, the problem in economics of taxing wealthy people is that it puts a disincentive on productive work. This is called deadweight loss. But in this other crazy hypothetical, we can get tax dollars infinitely for free from only wealthy people! Amazing!
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > The downside is one of redistributionary effect of having a flat tax. IE it negatively effects poor people more. To affect poor people more it would have to be affecting people. I thought it was free money because it doesn't put a disincentive on productive work? > The hypothetical that the other person gave, was that we could engage in taxing wealthy people and it would have zero deadweight loss (as in, those wealthy people apparently keep using the land exactly the same amount as they were before). They might keep using the land in the same way, but that doesn't tell you anything about how they were using the money. They could intend to donate it to a charity or use it for some economically productive activity and the government may or may not be able to put it to a more productive use. US legislators' track record on monetary efficiency is rather humiliating.
    - stale2002 3y ago
      > I thought it was free money because it doesn't put a disincentive on productive work There are 2 major and unrelated effects to taxes that are discussed in any basic economics 101 theory that I am happen to explain to you. Sorry, I take a lot of basic econ theory for granted, even though I am sure most people haven't taken an introductory economics class. Thus leading to confusion. effect 1: Changes to behavior/Disincentives on work. IE deadweight loss. effect 2: the redistributionary effects of the taxes. IE does it harm poor people or not. These are unrelated effects and are separate effects/downsides/benefits. Do you understand how there can be 2 effects to a thing that happens, effect 1 which is bad, and that there can be a different effect 2 which is also bad in a different way? You saying "Well what about this policy B that doesn't have downside number 1?!? Are you saying that there is nothing bad to policy B?!? Because you said that policy A was fine because it doesn't have downside 1? Therefore it must be that policy B is good because it also doesn't have downside 1." The completely obvious counter response to this bad point is that policy B, which is different than policy A, has an additional downside which is downside number 2. And policy A is good because it has neither downside 1 or downside 2. Does that explain the misunderstanding that is apparent from your comment? The fact that you brought up a head tax also betrays the point. Because you know that a head tax is bad, otherwise you wouldn't have used it as an example. You know that it isn't the same. Although it still confuses me that you would bring it up, because you didn't jump to step 2 which is to explain the difference between the 2 policies. And the next question, that actually matters, is the clear different between a head tax and a land tax. Which is explainable via basic economic theory.