9 ms·

The easiest answer to this is a very slow phase in. LVT doesn't need to be 100%. You can start it at 1% and have it set to increase slowly over time. This means

The easiest answer to this is a very slow phase in. LVT doesn't need to be 100%. You can start it at 1% and have it set to increase slowly over time. This means that, for currenty owners, it will come into effect so slowly that it doesn't matter. You can even phase it in so slowly that on the timelines that they might want to sell it, it doesn't matter too much. And, at every point along that phase in, you get incremental improvements.

chabons 2y ago
This doesn't resolve the ongoing incentive to remove the LVT, creating immediate value for the current land-owners.
- orangesite 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - andriesm 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - vincnetas 2y ago
      When you have nothing to eat, and the rules that are in play are so complicated that you need team of layers to understand them, "playing by the rules" does not sound really valid argument.
  - vincnetas 2y ago
    In olden days when chopping of heads was more acceptable, smart people understood that "debt relief" was a way to somehow decrease a chance of loosing they'r heads :) Now, when technology (military) enables to control the masses more strictly this approach has fallen in popularity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_debt_relief https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_debt_relief
- pydry 2y ago
  What you describe applies to pretty much any tax on any asset. E.g. "if you tax bitcoin as capital gains that will only create an incentive to remove it because then the value of bitcoin will go up."
  - quietbritishjim 2y ago
    A proper analogy would be a yearly tax on bitcoin sitting idly in your wallet, not a capital gains tax. Land is already subject to capital gains tax.
    - bboygravity 2y ago
      SIdenote: this is the case right now in Netherlands (and 2 or 3 other European countries) and has been for decades. They tax capital value instead of capital gains value.
      - Manuel_D 2y ago
        So, if you bought $100K of bitcoin, then 10 years later the value of bitcoin drops by 50% you not only lost $50K you also paid taxes just for possession of the bitcoin? That seems awful. It'd also incentivize a lot of people to get "hacked" and lose their bitcoin. This pattern has been observed in practice, such as in France: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#Capital_flight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#Capital_flight
        bboygravity 2y ago
        Well what's fair depends on your situation. Let's say you invest 100k in Bitcoin and 10 years later it's 1M. In a capital gains system you would pay 252000 EUR in taxes on that (assuming 28% capital gains tax, which at least 1 country in Europe actually has). In the capital tax system you would have paid between 15.000 and 100.000 EUR of taxes on that over the same 10 years. Which is... much less. So you could argue that the tax on capital is much more "fair". It's definitely MUCH simpler in terms of administration, because you never ever have to prove the cost-basis of your investment. All you need to know is your current P&L. There are a lot of US brokers out there who deliberately "forget" to provide a cost basis when you buy shares (hello and fu DriveWealth).
- scott_w 2y ago
  This is a pretty weak argument, in my opinion: "we shouldn't do this because powerful people who don't benefit will try to undo it."
  - at_compile_time 2y ago
    It's not an argument not to do it. I'm just pointing out that it isn't enough to make the world a better place, you need to have a plan ready for how to keep it that way or we just get captured again.
    - scott_w 2y ago
      No you don’t because no plan survives first contact with reality. You simply have to keep plugging the benefits and make it politically infeasible for MPs/Congress/Etc. to undo it.
_heimdall 2y ago
Sure there are ways it could technically be implemented, but that doesn't say whether it should be implemented. Why is an LVT inheritly good for us? And is it so good that we should trick the public into not realizing a new tax was forced on them and the government was stealing more of their money?
- MostlyStable 2y ago
  There are more than enough words spilled on the first topic by better writers than myself. If you click around the archives of the substack the linked article is from, you will find plenty. As for the second point: usually LVT is proposed as a more efficient alternative to current taxes, not as an entirely new tax on top of all the currently existing taxes. In fact, there are people in this thread (inaccurately) accusing the author of being a "single taxer", since there are some Georgists who believe that an LVT could potentially be the only tax.

chabons 2y ago

This doesn't resolve the ongoing incentive to remove the LVT, creating immediate value for the current land-owners.

orangesite 2y ago
[flagged]
- andriesm 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - vincnetas 2y ago
    When you have nothing to eat, and the rules that are in play are so complicated that you need team of layers to understand them, "playing by the rules" does not sound really valid argument.
- vincnetas 2y ago
  In olden days when chopping of heads was more acceptable, smart people understood that "debt relief" was a way to somehow decrease a chance of loosing they'r heads :) Now, when technology (military) enables to control the masses more strictly this approach has fallen in popularity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_debt_relief https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_debt_relief
pydry 2y ago
What you describe applies to pretty much any tax on any asset. E.g. "if you tax bitcoin as capital gains that will only create an incentive to remove it because then the value of bitcoin will go up."
- quietbritishjim 2y ago
  A proper analogy would be a yearly tax on bitcoin sitting idly in your wallet, not a capital gains tax. Land is already subject to capital gains tax.
  - bboygravity 2y ago
    SIdenote: this is the case right now in Netherlands (and 2 or 3 other European countries) and has been for decades. They tax capital value instead of capital gains value.
    - Manuel_D 2y ago
      So, if you bought $100K of bitcoin, then 10 years later the value of bitcoin drops by 50% you not only lost $50K you also paid taxes just for possession of the bitcoin? That seems awful. It'd also incentivize a lot of people to get "hacked" and lose their bitcoin. This pattern has been observed in practice, such as in France: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#Capital_flight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#Capital_flight
      - bboygravity 2y ago
        Well what's fair depends on your situation. Let's say you invest 100k in Bitcoin and 10 years later it's 1M. In a capital gains system you would pay 252000 EUR in taxes on that (assuming 28% capital gains tax, which at least 1 country in Europe actually has). In the capital tax system you would have paid between 15.000 and 100.000 EUR of taxes on that over the same 10 years. Which is... much less. So you could argue that the tax on capital is much more "fair". It's definitely MUCH simpler in terms of administration, because you never ever have to prove the cost-basis of your investment. All you need to know is your current P&L. There are a lot of US brokers out there who deliberately "forget" to provide a cost basis when you buy shares (hello and fu DriveWealth).
scott_w 2y ago
This is a pretty weak argument, in my opinion: "we shouldn't do this because powerful people who don't benefit will try to undo it."
- at_compile_time 2y ago
  It's not an argument not to do it. I'm just pointing out that it isn't enough to make the world a better place, you need to have a plan ready for how to keep it that way or we just get captured again.
  - scott_w 2y ago
    No you don’t because no plan survives first contact with reality. You simply have to keep plugging the benefits and make it politically infeasible for MPs/Congress/Etc. to undo it.

_heimdall 2y ago

Sure there are ways it could technically be implemented, but that doesn't say whether it should be implemented. Why is an LVT inheritly good for us? And is it so good that we should trick the public into not realizing a new tax was forced on them and the government was stealing more of their money?

MostlyStable 2y ago
There are more than enough words spilled on the first topic by better writers than myself. If you click around the archives of the substack the linked article is from, you will find plenty. As for the second point: usually LVT is proposed as a more efficient alternative to current taxes, not as an entirely new tax on top of all the currently existing taxes. In fact, there are people in this thread (inaccurately) accusing the author of being a "single taxer", since there are some Georgists who believe that an LVT could potentially be the only tax.