This has to be satire. No one can be this narrow minded. It sounds like this author wants the government to essentially own all of the land, and only those who can afford to (the rich) to actually do anything with it. What's valuable land? What is this tax actually for? I think this is satire and the author is trying to make a point about socialism or something, no one can be these inept at economics.
I thought I'd open the article and see war as the answer. After all, if we just killed everyone looking for a place to live, then there'd no longer be a problem. It seems to be equally ethical.
This is exactly the same system of ownership as now, and a type of tax that already exists in many countries, but at a higher rate. I'm not sure why this is so horrifying.
I'm also not sure what makes it so hard for people to see the obvious fact that landlording is morally unjustifiable. Ideology is a hell of a drug I guess.
I feel like I'm failing an IQ test here. I assumed he meant 100% tax on rent, but then there's this line:
>Owners of valuable land would be forced to make maximum use of land with higher density rentals in order to make sufficient rental income to pay the land tax.
To begin with, is there a housing crisis in America? In my books, there is more housing per capita in U.S. than in every other country of the world save for Australia, and it is also more modern that almost everywhere else except a few countries that built out from nothing in the recent years like China (but per capita housing stock is much much lower there, and that housing is Soviet-style apartment blocks).
The crisis is that many people can't afford the housing that exists.
Much of the profit from the economy gets ploughed into land values, so land prices increase due to growth of the wider economy. So, much like owning company stock, you do nothing yet still profit from other people's effort, except with land, there's much less risk.
100% land tax was proposed by Henry George, and I'm surprised the article doesn't mention him. The idea is simply that land, natural resources etc, belong to all of us.
Consider a newborn child in a world where all the land is owned by other people.
They are essentially born a slave, having to work a substantial amount simply to pay rent to someone who does nothing but own land.
This proposal effectively acknowledges that we are all entitled to a share of the earth.
Of course any proposal that advocates "tax" or "government" is going to touch certain sensibilities, but rather than imagining an evil government sucking wealth from plucky individuals, consider it instead a big shared pool of cash, and every individual has a say in how (and how much) is collected and spent - which is what government ideally is.
LoL, exactly. It's just a metter of supply x demand. China is full of empty buildings due to keneysian policies. We should be worried on figuring out ways to increase well paid jobs offer.
This is just a weak form of Georgism [1], which is a very old concept and has been both praised and panned since introduced in the late 19th century. Mostly it remains popular in Left-Libertarian circles.
I may not be understanding his proposal fully, so please bear with me. If I'm making a complete jackass of myself through misunderstanding, let me know.
> It’s worth noting that more tax on land doesn’t mean higher housing costs! For those living in enormous houses in very expensive neighbourhoods, it certainly will: but that’s by design. But shifting the tax burden onto rich folks like this, means that the average person pays less.
I'm confused - what exactly is going to stop the company that owns the 50-unit apartment building that I live in from passing that tax directly onto me and the other tenants via rent?
And how does this help my parents, who own land and have completely paid off their house? Should they, age 60 and 80, start working the land to produce a profit to offset the tax? Should I come back and start having more kids to work the farm?
> what exactly is going to stop the company that owns the 50-unit apartment building that I live in from passing that tax directly onto me and the other tenants via rent?
Competition. Your landlords are already charging as much as they can get away with.
> And how does this help my parents, who own land and have completely paid off their house?
The enormous pool of money raised could help fund public healthcare and social security programs that they would benefit from.
> Should they, age 60 and 80, start working the land to produce a profit to offset the tax? Should I come back and start having more kids to work the farm?
If they own a farm but don't want to do anything with the land, they should probably downsize to a smaller property, yes?
The point is to make underutilized land uneconomical to keep that way. Landowners can no longer just sit on land that's not generating revenue. To generate revenue they will build more housing. The economics of supply and demand with additional supply will make housing cheaper more than additional taxes passed on to tenants will make it more expensive.
Raising the rent more (to offset the tax) generates new taxes in exactly the amount raised.
Now, I'm sure they'll just layer it through a few steps to avoid the tax (like outrageously priced management services they happen to own), but I'm not seeing how they'd (directly) pass the tax on.
My guess (and I´m ok it's not what is in the article) is that taxes should be on benefits and not on land surface. A 100% tax on benefits mean that there are no need to overprice the rent once all maintenance costs are paid.
And then there will be no more interest in renting. Just own your piece of land.
The city of Toronto taxes my condo based on a fraction of it's assessed value. They don't even enter the building up decide what that value is, but they have a database of every homes estimated value.
I don't think this is a good solution. Where is the incentive for anyone to maintain properties anymore?
"Owners of valuable land would be forced to make maximum use of land with higher density rentals in order to make sufficient rental income to pay the land tax."
I don't see how this follows if all income is taxed at 100%.
The correct solution is to eliminate NIMBYism by eliminating the ability for homeowners to restrict the construction of new buildings so that new housing can be built. Rent control should also be eliminated, allowing demand to match supply.
You don't need to tear this post a new asshole, it disproves itself.
> No profit from land ownership means no price bubbles, because there’s no incentive (in fact, a powerful financial disincentive) to idly hold onto land.
There is no incentive to hold land at all. Business transactions are motivated by monetary gain. If there is none, business will seldom occur.
Let's start by all agreeing that the proposal to tax land at 100% (of what?) is a bit nutty and not going to happen. Possibly this is satire. Poe's Law.
But toned down, would an increased, progressive tax on land ownership have positive benefits? More tax income, yes. And the author isn't wrong in that such a change would serve to level land values (and therefore rents, probably) out a bit.
There would sure be some upheaval bringing it in ("my mom can't afford to live in her family home anymore after 40 years!"). But it's an interesting proposal.
Every single law or solution you can make up for this problem (and many other similar ones) has one big flaw. That is the people who make the rules will ensure their properties are excluded, and every single lawyer and accountant will then follow these same rules for their clients to ensure they are also excluded.
This is currently the way the world works. Get over it!
I think housing crisis (what/where is that anyway?) could be solved if there was a way to own space vertically. So that someone could build over or under existing buildings.
[+] [-] Overtonwindow|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] helthanatos|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mabbo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] djrobstep|9 years ago|reply
I'm also not sure what makes it so hard for people to see the obvious fact that landlording is morally unjustifiable. Ideology is a hell of a drug I guess.
[+] [-] aqsheehy|9 years ago|reply
>Owners of valuable land would be forced to make maximum use of land with higher density rentals in order to make sufficient rental income to pay the land tax.
What would the 100% be on exactly?
[+] [-] stagbeetle|9 years ago|reply
I believe he's mixing up profit with income, which should tell you how well-read he is on the subject matter.
[+] [-] djrobstep|9 years ago|reply
Formula: total rental income * (value of land / value of land and buildings)
[+] [-] anovikov|9 years ago|reply
To begin with, is there a housing crisis in America? In my books, there is more housing per capita in U.S. than in every other country of the world save for Australia, and it is also more modern that almost everywhere else except a few countries that built out from nothing in the recent years like China (but per capita housing stock is much much lower there, and that housing is Soviet-style apartment blocks).
[+] [-] jacknews|9 years ago|reply
Much of the profit from the economy gets ploughed into land values, so land prices increase due to growth of the wider economy. So, much like owning company stock, you do nothing yet still profit from other people's effort, except with land, there's much less risk.
100% land tax was proposed by Henry George, and I'm surprised the article doesn't mention him. The idea is simply that land, natural resources etc, belong to all of us.
Consider a newborn child in a world where all the land is owned by other people. They are essentially born a slave, having to work a substantial amount simply to pay rent to someone who does nothing but own land. This proposal effectively acknowledges that we are all entitled to a share of the earth.
Of course any proposal that advocates "tax" or "government" is going to touch certain sensibilities, but rather than imagining an evil government sucking wealth from plucky individuals, consider it instead a big shared pool of cash, and every individual has a say in how (and how much) is collected and spent - which is what government ideally is.
[+] [-] filipecalasans|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AndrewKemendo|9 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
[2] http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/04/land-val...
[+] [-] gragas|9 years ago|reply
That pretty much sums up the article. This is a horrible idea and will never happen.
[+] [-] tps5|9 years ago|reply
(I don't know enough about this subject to have a strong opinion either way, but I feel pretty confident saying that this isn't a terrible idea)
[+] [-] SomeStupidPoint|9 years ago|reply
Merely asserting it isn't the same as refuting the article (which lays out some arguments) and doesn't really add anything to the discussion.
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|9 years ago|reply
> It’s worth noting that more tax on land doesn’t mean higher housing costs! For those living in enormous houses in very expensive neighbourhoods, it certainly will: but that’s by design. But shifting the tax burden onto rich folks like this, means that the average person pays less.
I'm confused - what exactly is going to stop the company that owns the 50-unit apartment building that I live in from passing that tax directly onto me and the other tenants via rent?
And how does this help my parents, who own land and have completely paid off their house? Should they, age 60 and 80, start working the land to produce a profit to offset the tax? Should I come back and start having more kids to work the farm?
[+] [-] djrobstep|9 years ago|reply
Competition. Your landlords are already charging as much as they can get away with.
> And how does this help my parents, who own land and have completely paid off their house?
The enormous pool of money raised could help fund public healthcare and social security programs that they would benefit from.
> Should they, age 60 and 80, start working the land to produce a profit to offset the tax? Should I come back and start having more kids to work the farm?
If they own a farm but don't want to do anything with the land, they should probably downsize to a smaller property, yes?
[+] [-] infogulch|9 years ago|reply
The point is to make underutilized land uneconomical to keep that way. Landowners can no longer just sit on land that's not generating revenue. To generate revenue they will build more housing. The economics of supply and demand with additional supply will make housing cheaper more than additional taxes passed on to tenants will make it more expensive.
[+] [-] SomeStupidPoint|9 years ago|reply
Raising the rent more (to offset the tax) generates new taxes in exactly the amount raised.
Now, I'm sure they'll just layer it through a few steps to avoid the tax (like outrageously priced management services they happen to own), but I'm not seeing how they'd (directly) pass the tax on.
[+] [-] Xoros|9 years ago|reply
And then there will be no more interest in renting. Just own your piece of land.
And then all collapse.
[+] [-] dnautics|9 years ago|reply
How would we know what the value of that land is? Does some assessor come around and place an "expert opinion" sticker price on that land?
[+] [-] mabbo|9 years ago|reply
The city of Toronto taxes my condo based on a fraction of it's assessed value. They don't even enter the building up decide what that value is, but they have a database of every homes estimated value.
[+] [-] lawrencewu|9 years ago|reply
"Owners of valuable land would be forced to make maximum use of land with higher density rentals in order to make sufficient rental income to pay the land tax."
I don't see how this follows if all income is taxed at 100%.
The correct solution is to eliminate NIMBYism by eliminating the ability for homeowners to restrict the construction of new buildings so that new housing can be built. Rent control should also be eliminated, allowing demand to match supply.
[+] [-] stagbeetle|9 years ago|reply
> No profit from land ownership means no price bubbles, because there’s no incentive (in fact, a powerful financial disincentive) to idly hold onto land.
There is no incentive to hold land at all. Business transactions are motivated by monetary gain. If there is none, business will seldom occur.
[+] [-] earljwagner|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mabbo|9 years ago|reply
But toned down, would an increased, progressive tax on land ownership have positive benefits? More tax income, yes. And the author isn't wrong in that such a change would serve to level land values (and therefore rents, probably) out a bit.
There would sure be some upheaval bringing it in ("my mom can't afford to live in her family home anymore after 40 years!"). But it's an interesting proposal.
[+] [-] boznz|9 years ago|reply
This is currently the way the world works. Get over it!
[+] [-] Geee|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ouid|9 years ago|reply