7 ms·

> There's not much wrong with moving for retirement. We don't like to do it, and residential property owners should to some extent (for a number of years) be ex

> There's not much wrong with moving for retirement. We don't like to do it, and residential property owners should to some extent (for a number of years) be exempt from land value tax, but the alternative (hoarding valuable land) is much worse. Totally agree. People need to live where jobs are! That's the main determinant of where you live! When you're retired, you don't need to commute any more so forcing others to have to live further away and commute past you is a large burden being placed on productivity. We want to tax unproductive behavior so this is an entirely reasonable thing to me. All things being equal, retired people should be incentivized to move when they retire!

PopAlongKid 1y ago
>People need to live where jobs are! That's the main determinant of where you live! Retired people need to live where shopping, health resources, and their offspring (if any) are.
- avidiax 1y ago
  > Retired people need to live where shopping, health resources, and their offspring are. Their offspring can't afford to live near them, and can't afford the time to visit with such long commutes. Maybe if retired people moved, instead of staying where their job was 30 years ago, their kids could visit, and they could even afford more healthcare.
immibis 1y ago
People also like stability and it's bad to make people's lives unstable without a really really good reason. Kicking elderly people out of their homes to save a few minutes commute for each other person doesn't seem like a good exchange. I'm sure you can come up with utility numbers that make it look good, but it still seems bad.
- adverbly 1y ago
  > People also like stability People liking something isn't how we should determine our incentive structure. People like gambling and smoking, but that doesn't mean they're good! If something is a drain on productivity, we want less of it. In fact, this very argument is why LVT is so awesome! You can tax land without reducing its supply meaning it has zero deadweight loss! This is why economists love LVT, and why many call it the "least bad tax".
  - immibis 1y ago
    If all you want is productivity, raise food prices until the poor die of starvation.

PopAlongKid 1y ago

>People need to live where jobs are! That's the main determinant of where you live! Retired people need to live where shopping, health resources, and their offspring (if any) are.

avidiax 1y ago
> Retired people need to live where shopping, health resources, and their offspring are. Their offspring can't afford to live near them, and can't afford the time to visit with such long commutes. Maybe if retired people moved, instead of staying where their job was 30 years ago, their kids could visit, and they could even afford more healthcare.

immibis 1y ago

People also like stability and it's bad to make people's lives unstable without a really really good reason. Kicking elderly people out of their homes to save a few minutes commute for each other person doesn't seem like a good exchange. I'm sure you can come up with utility numbers that make it look good, but it still seems bad.

adverbly 1y ago
> People also like stability People liking something isn't how we should determine our incentive structure. People like gambling and smoking, but that doesn't mean they're good! If something is a drain on productivity, we want less of it. In fact, this very argument is why LVT is so awesome! You can tax land without reducing its supply meaning it has zero deadweight loss! This is why economists love LVT, and why many call it the "least bad tax".
- immibis 1y ago
  If all you want is productivity, raise food prices until the poor die of starvation.