3 ms·
Well, I (and most economists) disagree. I think you just have a misunderstanding of how taxes work. The person or company that "pays" the tax does not bear the
by jaredklewis 1mo ago
Well, I (and most economists) disagree.
I think you just have a misunderstanding of how taxes work. The person or company that "pays" the tax does not bear the full burden of the tax. That burden is usually widely distributed throughout the economy. In the example of LVT, a landlord would pass on the LVT in the form of increased rents to their tenants. A power company that pays a carbon tax charge more their electricity. An income tax makes it more expensive to give people jobs, so even if the earner pays it, that burden is also bore by the unemployed. Whoever pays the tax, they just pass it on to the rest of the economy.
But that's ok, because taxes can be paired with other methods like cash transfers or social programs that can effectively redistribute wealth. We should try to raise taxes with methods that have good side effects (LVT, carbon taxes), and then redistribute as necessary.
- neilwilson 1mo ago“Most economists” haven’t the faintest clue how money works. Relying on their pronouncements is why we’re in the mess we’re in. The LVT doesn’t work for the fairly simple reason that value is in the eye of the beholder and requires a bureaucracy, tax is paid from income and rich people have power and therefore just put the prices up to recover the extra cost, which they can do because there are fewer jobs than people that want them. Legal tax incidence != economic tax incidence Taxation by estate agent is a non-starter in any democracy. Nobody likes real estate people to start with.
- psd1 1mo agoI'd refine your opener to: - economists have a good idea of how economies have worked _to date_ - they posit new policy to achieve goals - these policies introduce second-order effects that they failed to predict I mean, Friedman's criticism of Keynes was excellent, and forsooth, his policies made stonks go up. But i don't think there economy is any better for them; i think we are, broadly, worse off. I support LVT, but there will be second-order effects. I guess we are doomed to lurch from crisis to crisis, at a higher level than economic boom-and-bust.
- sethammons 1mo ago> The person or company that "pays" the tax does not bear the full burden of the tax. As a homeowner, who else bears my tax?
- Chris2048 1mo agoPotentially anyone you pass it on to, such as a tenant.
- sethammons 1mo ago"get a roommate or move"?
- Chris2048 1mo agoThe topic of this sub-thread is whether a "land value tax would fix rich people from parking money in real estate". You have the option to pass on such a tax burden, as do any other home/land-owner(s), which is relevant to the conversation. What point are you making relevant to that?
- sethammons 1mo agoI am wondering what protects normal people. I hear a proposal what prevents the ultra wealthy from hoarding, but I am not seeing how this doesn't negatively impact normal, single family residences. It seems the goal is maximizing tax revenue, punishing hoarders of land, and pushing for communal living. The exact case I think it is imperative to avoid is removing the elderly (cough, less useful) from their forever home in the guise of progress.
- Chris2048 1mo agoThe obvious way would be tax relief on land used for primary residences up to some limit. But the point is the tax wouldn't dis-incentivise land acquisition so long as it wasn't left vacant.
- 1mo ago
- hhjinks 1mo agoReducing the insane wealth concentration at the top has positive side effects if it prevents whatever's been happening in politics the last decade.