geocon

7 ms·

1.
by geocon 4y ago
The idea is to tax land as a percentage of its value (notably, not its size). This is because land is a necessary good which is exclusionary: because there is a fixed supply of land, it can only be owned at the expense of someone else. So,
2.
by geocon 4y ago
It may lower property values some, but in the long run even homeowners will be better-off as other, more burdensome taxes decrease. Sure, increasing land taxes may not be that popular, but pair it with abolishing income taxes? That's a
3.
by geocon 4y ago
That would be a terrible idea, frankly, because it will cause gradients of overbuilding/land abandonment and underuse. Think about it this way: you have a city where land is worth $30/sqft/yr in the center, $10 at the edge an
4.
by geocon 4y ago
Sure, but durable goods aren't necessarily investment goods. Homes do depreciate in value- their quality declines and they become increasingly expensive to maintain, and they simply don't have the same amenities as newly-built hom
5.
by geocon 4y ago
Failure to understand imputed rents is a huge problem whenever housing discourse comes up.
6.
by geocon 4y ago
To clarify, it's not a flat dollar amount per square foot, it's a flat percentage of value. An acre of land in Wyoming is not taxed the same $/sqft as an acre of land in NYC.
7.
by geocon 4y ago
Implement a land value tax by exempting buildings and improvements from paying a property tax, shift state income and sales taxes onto land value, and ease zoning regulations.
8.
by geocon 4y ago
Er, an LVT doesn't tax the house at all, that's precisely the point. It only taxes the land... It's literally just a property tax that doesn't tax the house.
9.
by geocon 4y ago
Rent control is, I regret to inform you, also NIMBY; it benefits current residents at the expense of future ones.
10.
by geocon 4y ago
Do you think the government owns you too, since they take a portion of the proceeds of your work and will put you in jail if you don't pay it?
11.
by geocon 4y ago
How dare people get concerned over something so trivial as "having someplace to live"
12.
by geocon 4y ago
The point of an LVT is to incentivize the efficient use of land and to compensate the public for the recognition of exclusionary title to use of a location. This doesn't change based on who it is that is using the land or what they are
13.
by geocon 4y ago
Please, taxing something doesn't mean the government owns it. Does the government own someone's home because they have to pay property taxes to the city for paving the streets and running the garbage service?
14.
by geocon 4y ago
Behold the rise of neofeudalism: you can already see it in California, thanks to Prop 13. Land value tax would fix this.
15.
by geocon 4y ago
This is very inferior to just a regular land value tax if you understand the incentive structure
16.
by geocon 4y ago
Nah the Supreme Court is pretty deferential to Congress especially on powers of taxation, this is a load of nonsense
17.
by geocon 4y ago
> Asking for cheap housing, today, is like asking for eating the cake and selling it too. We don't want cheap housing that appreciates in value so that we can use it as an investment. We want cheap housing that we can live in, perio
18.
by geocon 4y ago
"Consumption" doesn't mean disposable, it means homes should be used to be used to fulfill needs and desires, and not used to increase wealth (as an investment good). Easiest way to do that is a land value tax; the home itsel
19.
by geocon 4y ago
Land value tax is better, imo, it charges directly based on the value of the scarce factor of production (land) and encourages development (i.e. more housing). Pretty silly to tax someone who owns a bunch of apartments in the middle of nowh
20.
by geocon 4y ago
Yeah this is the landbanking problem. The solution is something like a land value tax which penalizes this kind of speculation and development-throttling. In fact there was a great article about that I just posted: https://progre
21.
Land and Liberty to Build: On Georgism and YIMBYism(progressandpoverty.substack.com)
2 points by geocon 4y ago|3 comments
22.
by geocon 4y ago
Pretty interesting argument that without some way to punish landhoarding, the relaxing of zoning laws isn't enough to make housing affordable. Also, a land value tax seems like a great way to directly counter NIMBY accusations that upz
23.
The Martian and The Economist: A Parable of Panaceas(progressandpoverty.substack.com)
2 points by geocon 4y ago|0 comments
24.
by geocon 4y ago
Pretty neat article about the synthesis of Georgism and YIMBYism- without YIMBYism, Georgism can't be complete in its opposition to monopolistic economic restrictions; without Georgism, YIMBYism ends up as a giveaway to land speculator
25.
Land and Liberty to Build: On Georgism and YIMBYism(progressandpoverty.substack.com)
7 points by geocon 4y ago|2 comments
26.
by geocon 4y ago
I mean, I think crypto is pretty stupid and scammy myself (and if you know Lars he is suspicious of most blockchain stuff as well) but Vitalik seems like one of the more legitimate people working in that field. You may disagree with his ass
27.
by geocon 4y ago
Narratives has had some really interesting people on to discuss Georgism recently. Vitalik is very much in favor of it, looks like he was convinced by Lars Doucet's series on the topic at ACX. He's probably right in arguing that t
28.
Vitalik Buterin Talks Georgism, Crypto, Voting Systems(narrativespodcast.com)
65 points by geocon 4y ago|85 comments
29.
by geocon 4y ago
Land isn't, but land value (in dollars) is
30.
by geocon 4y ago
I think he's talking about the second part, which I found linked wayyyyy at the bottom: https://dailyanarchist.com/2012/06/21/the-single-tax-a-refut... That said I don't find this to be particularly

More ›