5 ms·

Thanks for posting this view: I had read the "Land Value Tax"-side of the argument before (and somewhat agree with it), but I hadn't seen someone post good reas

Thanks for posting this view: I had read the "Land Value Tax"-side of the argument before (and somewhat agree with it), but I hadn't seen someone post good reasons _not_ to support LVT. I think your reply - and your other replies - are pretty good reasons

Ntrails 3y ago
My view is to simply allow property taxes to be deferred until sale or death. Alternatives exist (eg taxable value set by what you paid not marked to market)
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  Income tax is inherently progressive and doesn't hit Grandma who lives on modest retirement and social security. Having one reducing reliance on property taxes
  - rcpt 3y ago
    Do want California's housing situation? Because that's how you get California's housing situation.
    - michaelmrose 3y ago
      California's housing situation is because they are a highly desirable location and didn't build enough housing to meet demand not because they have an income tax.
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        Selling your house and losing your lower assessment is a huge reason not to sell your house. This make California’s real estate market less liquid then other real estate markets, since selling can have a huge extra cost vs not selling.
  - Ntrails 3y ago
    "We've got a bunch of people with massive wealth, so tax only the people earning new money" doesn't sound like it is going to equalise the state of the world. I will also accept inheritance tax at 90%, if you really want to skip property taxes :)
    - michaelmrose 3y ago
      I'm perfectly open to a wealth not just inheritance tax too
- no_wizard 3y ago
  Why not just tax the land value and disregard the things in top of it entirely?
  - tzs 3y ago
    One reason would be that it is the things on top of the land that determine how much of various government built and maintained infrastructure is needed.
no_wizard 3y ago
Texas doesn’t have an LVT they have a traditional property tax system that primarily bases taxes on assessed value of the home on top of the land, not the land itself. LVT would actually negate the parent posters complaints, as only the underlying land would be assessed and the penalties only really kick in if the land is unoccupied or is not utilized (sitting vacant is the most common of this, followed by lack of utilization, for instance under many LVT implementations large lot owners with single homes also get hit with underutilization penalties to encourage subdividing and utilization of the land which is a net win for society And often the immediate land owner. Objections tend to philosophical on this point) It disincentives empty / under-utilized land holdings like vacant lots or lots that could support more utilization (usually via an activities like building homes on top and selling / renting them or farming) There is nuance in implementation details but in broad strokes that covers it in tl;dr fashion

Ntrails 3y ago

My view is to simply allow property taxes to be deferred until sale or death. Alternatives exist (eg taxable value set by what you paid not marked to market)

michaelmrose 3y ago
Income tax is inherently progressive and doesn't hit Grandma who lives on modest retirement and social security. Having one reducing reliance on property taxes
- rcpt 3y ago
  Do want California's housing situation? Because that's how you get California's housing situation.
  - michaelmrose 3y ago
    California's housing situation is because they are a highly desirable location and didn't build enough housing to meet demand not because they have an income tax.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      Selling your house and losing your lower assessment is a huge reason not to sell your house. This make California’s real estate market less liquid then other real estate markets, since selling can have a huge extra cost vs not selling.
- Ntrails 3y ago
  "We've got a bunch of people with massive wealth, so tax only the people earning new money" doesn't sound like it is going to equalise the state of the world. I will also accept inheritance tax at 90%, if you really want to skip property taxes :)
  - michaelmrose 3y ago
    I'm perfectly open to a wealth not just inheritance tax too
no_wizard 3y ago
Why not just tax the land value and disregard the things in top of it entirely?
- tzs 3y ago
  One reason would be that it is the things on top of the land that determine how much of various government built and maintained infrastructure is needed.

no_wizard 3y ago

Texas doesn’t have an LVT they have a traditional property tax system that primarily bases taxes on assessed value of the home on top of the land, not the land itself. LVT would actually negate the parent posters complaints, as only the underlying land would be assessed and the penalties only really kick in if the land is unoccupied or is not utilized (sitting vacant is the most common of this, followed by lack of utilization, for instance under many LVT implementations large lot owners with single homes also get hit with underutilization penalties to encourage subdividing and utilization of the land which is a net win for society And often the immediate land owner. Objections tend to philosophical on this point) It disincentives empty / under-utilized land holdings like vacant lots or lots that could support more utilization (usually via an activities like building homes on top and selling / renting them or farming) There is nuance in implementation details but in broad strokes that covers it in tl;dr fashion