6 ms·

That depends on what you mean by "the landlord problem." Are you alluding to ending private property ownership (communism) or something else?

lotsofpulp 2y ago
Marginal land value taxes, with even higher taxes the longer the space stays empty. Wonder if enough young/working people will ever wake up to realize earned income tax is penalizing them for working, and flat (and extremely low) land value taxes with myriad loopholes like 1031 exchange, senior discounts, and faux exemptions for things like agriculture are basically a feudal system to maintain the socioeconomic order.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  That's a proposed solution not a problem definition. What's the "landlord problem" that needs to get fixed and why is a land value tax the best option?
  - drekk 2y ago
    I'll just quote from Adam Smith as to the problem. I think the proposed solution is good. I think "best option" is needlessly specific, and subjective. No need to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. “As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them. He must then pay for the licence to gather them, and must give up to the landlord a portion of what his labour either collects or produces. This portion, or, what comes to the same thing, the price of this portion, constitutes the rent of land, and in the price of the greater part of commodities, makes a third” ― Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
    - EnigmaFlare 2y ago
      Fundamentally that's the problem of allocating scarce resources. If they're not allocated to whoever pays the most, it would be some other way which still excludes people. Maybe it's to the people who promise to fight for the king, or the winners of a lottery but at the end of the day, those other ways aren't better because someone still misses out.
      - lotsofpulp 2y ago
        A marginal and vacant property tax allocates the scarce resource based on whoever can use it most productively.
        _heimdall 2y ago
        It also creates disincentives for letting land lay unused. Why would we have forests or parks or homesteads when we have to pay taxes based on what someone else thinks the potential value generation of the land is? And how to we make sure that such a tax doesn't just push us further down the path of using as many natural resources as we can? A land tax is based on the assumption that all land should be used to its maximal financial value. I don't know about you, but I fundamentally disagree with that and don't want to live in a world where we've codified the need to use up whatever we have.
        lotsofpulp 2y ago
        The western US states all have urban growth boundaries for this reason. > just push us further down the path of using as many natural resources as we can? Using more surface area is using as many natural resources as we can. Energy = mass * distance. The further people live away, from each other, the more energy is consumed, for doing everything. A land value tax would incentivize density, and density reduces the use of as natural resources. The people living in 10x10x10 homes in Honk Kong are using magnitudes less natural resources than hundreds of millions of people in US suburbia and exurbia.
  - FactKnower69 2y ago
    every individual who gets their money by taking it from someone else through withholding shelter is a drain on the economy when they could be working a job that produces goods or services like everyone else
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      I assume that extends to the government as well? They get their money by taking it from everyone else, including property taxes which must be paid with the penalty being eventually losing you shelter.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - bsder 2y ago
    > What's the "landlord problem" The "landlord problem" is more the "speculation problem". Real estate has become based on "how much it will appreciate"--which is disastrous to society--rather than "the useful value of land and cashflow"--which is beneficial to society. The land value tax breaks the speculation side of the equation which leaving the usefulness intact.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      How do values get set for a land value tax without effectively still speculating? Is the idea usually that the tax would be based on what the potential value of the land is, for example to incentivize building businesses rather than parking lots? Investors will always speculate. A land value tax just adds another cost they have to account for, it doesn't prevent them from speculating and doing with thr land whatever they think most benefits them.
      - lotsofpulp 2y ago
        We already do it with property tax, there is a land portion of the property value assessment. It is not perfect, but it is easily doable. The only work that happens is that land value gets multiplied by another number. Any dispute about assessed land price gets adjudicated like it does now with any property assessment dispute.
        _heimdall 2y ago
        That's an estimate of the current fair market value of the property though, not the value of the potential producible value. I'm probably describing that poorly, but when I've seen arguments for land value tax its meant to tax what the property could be worth if optimally developed, incentivizing banks over parking lots for example. We already do a questionable job valuing tax assessments for current value, coming up with future value will be a lot harder. I'd honestly expect them to just make some blanket multiplier over current value which seems pretty useless.
        2y ago
clob 2y ago
FWIW communism speaks more to ownership of the means of production than home ownership. Home ownership doesn’t produce anything. Even without leaping to a hypothetical economic system it’s possible to allow owning one home for your residence and not another for renting out. I don’t advocate anything here particularly
fizx 2y ago
I think we're alluding to making private property ownership more accessible, by making it more favorable, tax and otherwise, to own one house or small-business-zoned property, but less favorable to own many.
swayvil 2y ago
Maybe communism, or something, is the way to go. The economy is the lifeblood of our society. Surely we don't want its form to be dictated by something as whimsical as a marketplace.
- cscurmudgeon 2y ago
  > Surely we don't want its form to be dictated by something as whimsical as a marketplace Yep, much better to be dictated by something less whimsical, e.g., a party committee. /s
  - swayvil 2y ago
    Assuming that distributed control is invariably going to turn into a fight (spending every available resource in the process), yes, centralized control seems to be the answer.
    - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
      > centralized control seems to be the answer Yep, worked perfectly for East Germany, USSR and works great for North Korea. An omniscient committee of a dozen party members will know better than hundreds of millions what is better for the hundreds of millions because humans are alike and predictable. /s
      - swayvil 2y ago
        Try to drive a bus by having the dozen passengers fight with each other. That probably isn't going to work. I think that governance by having everybody fight with each other only serves the strongest fighters. And of course these strong fighters will tell everybody that this system is the best of all possible systems. Surely it makes you think.
        cscurmudgeon 2y ago
        > Try to drive a bus by having the dozen passengers fight with each other A bus is a different from a country. Also, in a bus, imagine the bus driver dictating where the passengers should get down and what they should listen to, what they should think, if their windows should be rolled up, etc. I get your point. You need a bus driver (I agree that we need regulated markets), but the bus driver shouldn't be overbearing.

lotsofpulp 2y ago

Marginal land value taxes, with even higher taxes the longer the space stays empty. Wonder if enough young/working people will ever wake up to realize earned income tax is penalizing them for working, and flat (and extremely low) land value taxes with myriad loopholes like 1031 exchange, senior discounts, and faux exemptions for things like agriculture are basically a feudal system to maintain the socioeconomic order.

_heimdall 2y ago
That's a proposed solution not a problem definition. What's the "landlord problem" that needs to get fixed and why is a land value tax the best option?
- drekk 2y ago
  I'll just quote from Adam Smith as to the problem. I think the proposed solution is good. I think "best option" is needlessly specific, and subjective. No need to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. “As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them. He must then pay for the licence to gather them, and must give up to the landlord a portion of what his labour either collects or produces. This portion, or, what comes to the same thing, the price of this portion, constitutes the rent of land, and in the price of the greater part of commodities, makes a third” ― Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
  - EnigmaFlare 2y ago
    Fundamentally that's the problem of allocating scarce resources. If they're not allocated to whoever pays the most, it would be some other way which still excludes people. Maybe it's to the people who promise to fight for the king, or the winners of a lottery but at the end of the day, those other ways aren't better because someone still misses out.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      A marginal and vacant property tax allocates the scarce resource based on whoever can use it most productively.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        It also creates disincentives for letting land lay unused. Why would we have forests or parks or homesteads when we have to pay taxes based on what someone else thinks the potential value generation of the land is? And how to we make sure that such a tax doesn't just push us further down the path of using as many natural resources as we can? A land tax is based on the assumption that all land should be used to its maximal financial value. I don't know about you, but I fundamentally disagree with that and don't want to live in a world where we've codified the need to use up whatever we have.
        lotsofpulp 2y ago
        The western US states all have urban growth boundaries for this reason. > just push us further down the path of using as many natural resources as we can? Using more surface area is using as many natural resources as we can. Energy = mass * distance. The further people live away, from each other, the more energy is consumed, for doing everything. A land value tax would incentivize density, and density reduces the use of as natural resources. The people living in 10x10x10 homes in Honk Kong are using magnitudes less natural resources than hundreds of millions of people in US suburbia and exurbia.
- FactKnower69 2y ago
  every individual who gets their money by taking it from someone else through withholding shelter is a drain on the economy when they could be working a job that produces goods or services like everyone else
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    I assume that extends to the government as well? They get their money by taking it from everyone else, including property taxes which must be paid with the penalty being eventually losing you shelter.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bsder 2y ago
  > What's the "landlord problem" The "landlord problem" is more the "speculation problem". Real estate has become based on "how much it will appreciate"--which is disastrous to society--rather than "the useful value of land and cashflow"--which is beneficial to society. The land value tax breaks the speculation side of the equation which leaving the usefulness intact.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    How do values get set for a land value tax without effectively still speculating? Is the idea usually that the tax would be based on what the potential value of the land is, for example to incentivize building businesses rather than parking lots? Investors will always speculate. A land value tax just adds another cost they have to account for, it doesn't prevent them from speculating and doing with thr land whatever they think most benefits them.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      We already do it with property tax, there is a land portion of the property value assessment. It is not perfect, but it is easily doable. The only work that happens is that land value gets multiplied by another number. Any dispute about assessed land price gets adjudicated like it does now with any property assessment dispute.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        That's an estimate of the current fair market value of the property though, not the value of the potential producible value. I'm probably describing that poorly, but when I've seen arguments for land value tax its meant to tax what the property could be worth if optimally developed, incentivizing banks over parking lots for example. We already do a questionable job valuing tax assessments for current value, coming up with future value will be a lot harder. I'd honestly expect them to just make some blanket multiplier over current value which seems pretty useless.
        2y ago

clob 2y ago

FWIW communism speaks more to ownership of the means of production than home ownership. Home ownership doesn’t produce anything. Even without leaping to a hypothetical economic system it’s possible to allow owning one home for your residence and not another for renting out. I don’t advocate anything here particularly

fizx 2y ago

I think we're alluding to making private property ownership more accessible, by making it more favorable, tax and otherwise, to own one house or small-business-zoned property, but less favorable to own many.

swayvil 2y ago

Maybe communism, or something, is the way to go. The economy is the lifeblood of our society. Surely we don't want its form to be dictated by something as whimsical as a marketplace.

cscurmudgeon 2y ago
> Surely we don't want its form to be dictated by something as whimsical as a marketplace Yep, much better to be dictated by something less whimsical, e.g., a party committee. /s
- swayvil 2y ago
  Assuming that distributed control is invariably going to turn into a fight (spending every available resource in the process), yes, centralized control seems to be the answer.
  - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
    > centralized control seems to be the answer Yep, worked perfectly for East Germany, USSR and works great for North Korea. An omniscient committee of a dozen party members will know better than hundreds of millions what is better for the hundreds of millions because humans are alike and predictable. /s
    - swayvil 2y ago
      Try to drive a bus by having the dozen passengers fight with each other. That probably isn't going to work. I think that governance by having everybody fight with each other only serves the strongest fighters. And of course these strong fighters will tell everybody that this system is the best of all possible systems. Surely it makes you think.
      - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
        > Try to drive a bus by having the dozen passengers fight with each other A bus is a different from a country. Also, in a bus, imagine the bus driver dictating where the passengers should get down and what they should listen to, what they should think, if their windows should be rolled up, etc. I get your point. You need a bus driver (I agree that we need regulated markets), but the bus driver shouldn't be overbearing.