6 ms·

I'm actually not a single-taxer, for the record. > The author mentions Decentraland. The whole point of Decentraland, which is a crypto metaverse, was to make

I'm actually not a single-taxer, for the record. > The author mentions Decentraland. The whole point of Decentraland, which is a crypto metaverse, was to make land prices go up. They didn't. Decentraland is boring and nobody goes there. But it does work, and it's up and running all the time. There are other crypto metaverses. Most of them never got beyond the hand-waving stage or the occasional demo of a small virtual world, but that didn't stop them from trying to sell overpriced land. Despite all the noise from the metaverse crowd, few of them got very far on implementation. We are in agreement. I thought the crypto metaverses were stupid and said so loudly at the time and predicted they would fail for many reasons; the point about land speculation with crypto games is that charging for the right to upload UGC is literally the dumbest idea in the world. The difference between a crypto metaverse and the real world is you can opt out of existing in any individual virtual world. This is all mentioned in the article. > The supply of land is not limited [in Second Life]. This is mentioned in the article. > Despite doing things the way this author likes > You pay Linden Lab a fixed fee per square meter, regardless of what you're doing with the land A fixed fee per square meter without regard to land use or location is literally the opposite of the system I have described. As for evidence real-world cities, you might observe from evidence real world cities that have done the opposite of an LVT -- proposition 13 in California for instance. And you might notice states with very high property taxes (an imperfect tax to be sure, but one that definitely puts a higher holding cost on land, despite the inefficient tax on buildings). Tell me, is housing more affordable in states with high property taxes, or in states with very low property taxes?

skybrian 2y ago
Since higher demand results in higher prices, you could rephrase that line as: is housing (and land) more desirable in states with higher or lower property taxes? I think it's mainly unrelated. Other things like available jobs, climate, amenities, and so on seem more important? I've never quite understood whether the land value tax advocates wanted taxes to be higher or lower on average, or how they expect economic activity to vary with tax rates. They seem to expect tax policy to have large effects all on its own, though, and I'm more skeptical that it will make much difference.
Arch485 2y ago
To answer your last question: it depends! Cranking up property tax or land tax still sucks. Sure, maybe you can buy land now, but what if you want to live on it? Your house doesn't earn you income (i.e. what you build on your land is not "productive"), so you're stuck paying taxes on something that doesn't give you any fiscal value. In practice, this doesn't help housing crises very much, but it _does_ increase wealth disparity! People who could previously afford a home now have to sell their property and either rent from somewhere, or buy a cheaper, presumably worse property. The increased property taxes also get passed from landlord to renter, up to what the market will bear. This is also bad, because it significantly increases the cost of living. Overall, there's no direct relationship between more expensive/less expensive housing and whether land/property is taxed. It's usually a challenge of efficient zoning etc. Now, one alternative that I'm interested in would be an "surplus land tax", i.e., if you own a property for the purposes of living on it, there is minimal or no taxation. Then if you buy more property for some reason, the tax is significantly higher (why do you, as an individual, need more land?). This discourages people from owning a surplus of land, while (hopefully) avoiding the increase in wealth disparity. If you want land for the purpose of a business, the revenue from the business should ideally cover any applicable land taxes.
- hibikir 2y ago
  The tax doesn't really increase wealth disparity, as your example with no tax requires someone being able to buy the land in the first place. If the land is still very desirable, the person that owns a very well located plot is extremely wealthy by investing when it was cheap, or having a lot of money. The wealth disparity is still there, just with a different winner. Your surplus idea has significant problems: First, good luck if you aren't owning a single family home, as then you aren't tax free. Second, that you can still massively speculate by buying the highest valued land you can, in the largest plot possible, and then have the best leverage. So prices of land don't go down, but way up! And that's while the land is also less useful to neighbors, as a large plot with a house in it is far worse than, say, a corner store, a park, or an office. So you are rewarding the land use that is the lowest value to neighbors, while theoretically calling that affordability. If you want more desirable land to be available to more people, the only sensible alternative is to make more people be able to use it at a time: Anything else is just picking a different favorite way to decide who gets to use it/buy it. It also makes the land more useful in general: The bay area would be much lower balue than it is now if it was occupied by a sole proprietor who is the only one traversing its current streets and buildings.

skybrian 2y ago

Since higher demand results in higher prices, you could rephrase that line as: is housing (and land) more desirable in states with higher or lower property taxes? I think it's mainly unrelated. Other things like available jobs, climate, amenities, and so on seem more important? I've never quite understood whether the land value tax advocates wanted taxes to be higher or lower on average, or how they expect economic activity to vary with tax rates. They seem to expect tax policy to have large effects all on its own, though, and I'm more skeptical that it will make much difference.

Arch485 2y ago

To answer your last question: it depends! Cranking up property tax or land tax still sucks. Sure, maybe you can buy land now, but what if you want to live on it? Your house doesn't earn you income (i.e. what you build on your land is not "productive"), so you're stuck paying taxes on something that doesn't give you any fiscal value. In practice, this doesn't help housing crises very much, but it _does_ increase wealth disparity! People who could previously afford a home now have to sell their property and either rent from somewhere, or buy a cheaper, presumably worse property. The increased property taxes also get passed from landlord to renter, up to what the market will bear. This is also bad, because it significantly increases the cost of living. Overall, there's no direct relationship between more expensive/less expensive housing and whether land/property is taxed. It's usually a challenge of efficient zoning etc. Now, one alternative that I'm interested in would be an "surplus land tax", i.e., if you own a property for the purposes of living on it, there is minimal or no taxation. Then if you buy more property for some reason, the tax is significantly higher (why do you, as an individual, need more land?). This discourages people from owning a surplus of land, while (hopefully) avoiding the increase in wealth disparity. If you want land for the purpose of a business, the revenue from the business should ideally cover any applicable land taxes.

hibikir 2y ago
The tax doesn't really increase wealth disparity, as your example with no tax requires someone being able to buy the land in the first place. If the land is still very desirable, the person that owns a very well located plot is extremely wealthy by investing when it was cheap, or having a lot of money. The wealth disparity is still there, just with a different winner. Your surplus idea has significant problems: First, good luck if you aren't owning a single family home, as then you aren't tax free. Second, that you can still massively speculate by buying the highest valued land you can, in the largest plot possible, and then have the best leverage. So prices of land don't go down, but way up! And that's while the land is also less useful to neighbors, as a large plot with a house in it is far worse than, say, a corner store, a park, or an office. So you are rewarding the land use that is the lowest value to neighbors, while theoretically calling that affordability. If you want more desirable land to be available to more people, the only sensible alternative is to make more people be able to use it at a time: Anything else is just picking a different favorite way to decide who gets to use it/buy it. It also makes the land more useful in general: The bay area would be much lower balue than it is now if it was occupied by a sole proprietor who is the only one traversing its current streets and buildings.