Land, as apposed to the property on it, is raw nature. If we view raw nature as a common inheritance of mankind, then paying a tax on land is how the exclusionary use of it, balances with the common interest in it.
Economist Henry George in the 1800's, pointed out that taxing land, but not the property on it, incentivizes efficient use of land, because holding land for its passive (parasitic) return even when underused, becomes unprofitable when the land is taxed in proportion to the value it can enable.
And in turn, only taxing land, not property, incentivizes increased development, as higher property investment amortizes land tax against higher returns.
Greater investment in housing being just one way land tax, without property tax, incentives greater productive use.
So many things align for higher growth in ways that more evenly benefit everyone. But our relationship with land is over-complicated, and that is both the reason for change, but the reason change is so hard.
Small attempts have failed, but then, for the rich who can hold land and reap growth in value that outpaces the taxes they pay on it, that remains another inefficient/negative-externality, that pays off for them.
The hard part is that we've structured life such that you are on a fixed income at the end of your life in no position really to deal with inflation. At least when you are still working, in theory at least your wages will go up with inflation. This is really why prop 13 happened to pass at all: the idea of being displaced at the end of your life out of the home you already paid off due to market forces you aren't even a participant in is actually widely unpopular even if it makes better economic sense.
> the idea of being displaced at the end of your life out of the home
I would argue that this is unpopular not only amongst retirees but everyone. And it would have tons of negative side effects.
Why would I fix up my house to look nice, if I’ll be displaced? Why would I invest in my child’s local school system, if we could be displaced? Why would I do any community outreach or support, or get involved in local politics? How can banks underwrite loans if the affordability can fluctuate wildly? Look at the life of people who live in mobile homes and trailer parks - they essentially rent the land, and it’s oppressive because they can’t afford to move (actually moving or repurposing land is hard) but their cost to stay is unpredictable.
The only people this is appealing for are people who fancy themselves analytically minded economists with no interest in the practical humanity of the people living there and renters hoping to finally do the displacing for their own affordability.
> The only people this is appealing for are people who fancy themselves analytically minded economists with no interest in the practical humanity
Most states in the US do not have Prop-13-like laws and get by just fine. For the few states that do, they are less restrictive taxation-wise than California's.
Prop 13 has completely distorted the housing market; it is, perhaps unintuitively, a co-cause of CA's housing unaffordability issues. (Prop 13 discourages new development, and is an enabler of housing NIMBYism.)
We of course shouldn't just abolish Prop 13 overnight, or lots of people will get displaced, also overnight. But we should absolutely reform it and phase it out over time, while building more housing, as fast as we can (something that will be a little bit easier to do as all the NIMBYs realize that if they keep shooting down housing projects, their property taxes are gonna go up a ton).
Prop 13 isn't for seniors, though, it's for all ages. And the heirs inherit the tax base. A senior-only prop 13 would reset at death, so at least it's limited in duration.
A common one I've seen is that for the elderly, property taxes are deferred until they die and are then deducted from their estate (including a sale of the house).
IMO this is a much more fair system than just saying "lol no taxes on the elderly."
Most states also rely on sales taxes and various fees, and assign limited property taxes. A Georgist land value tax would have much greater effects than the current tax regimes.
> Prop 13 has completely distorted the housing market; it is, perhaps unintuitively, a co-cause of CA's housing unaffordability issues. (Prop 13 discourages new development, and is an enabler of housing NIMBYism.)
I have heard this assertion with no proof or backing data a lot. There is an assumption but no explanation how kicking long time residents out of their homes due to tax pressure is a benefit to the community, or real estate market prices. Real estate agents and other service companies might benefit from more transactions.
There is also usually no mention that the main problem of Prop 13 is that it applies to commercial and industrial properties, not just individual primary residences. Individuals have a limited impact scoped to their life, but tax implications applied to long term corporations is what has an outsized effect.
The nonexistence of Prop 13 in other states should be pretty clear evidence that there are more options besides Prop 13 or kicking out lifelong residents.
Florida also doesn't have swarms of homeless people like CA does.
I find that forcing the elderly out of multimillion dollar homes and into apartments or even smaller homes is infinitely preferable to the human catastrophe plainly obvious on the streets of LA and SF.
Prop 13 is a bit of a nothingburger anyhow when you consider median homeownership period in CA is only like 2 years longer than national average, rather than the myth that seems to be perpetuated of every home being a 40+ year hold paying a couple dollars in property taxes. And when that home is sold the tax assessment of course goes right back to market rate, and boy that is substantial when you have what would be a 450k home outside of Boston go for 2.1m with a 1% tax. 21 thousand a year off a single 50ft wide lot is no slouch in terms of tax revenue.
> And when that home is sold the tax assessment of course goes right back to market rate, and boy that is substantial when you have what would be a 450k home outside of Boston go for 2.1m with a 1% tax. 21 thousand a year off a single 50ft wide lot is no slouch in terms of tax revenue.
The problem is all the tax revenue being lost at the municipality level for decades. National tenure average is ~12 years. Los Angeles is 20 years, SF is 16.5 and SJC is in between. It clearly has a meaningful effect, it's just harder to buy into the market and keep the home over a long period of time.
San Francisco receives over $3,000 per capita in property tax revenue alone. Dallas receives about $1,200 per capita. NYC is less than $1,000, though I gather NYC has their own property tax issues.
And California has an income tax, whereas Texas doesn't.
Prop 13 has it's problems, but I don't think they're as significant as the rhetoric claims. It makes for a great excuse, though. Politicians can blame Prop 13 for why they can't spend as much on services as people demand, and now it's become the common wisdom--but for Prop 13 California could afford to spend much more than it does, and the housing affordability crisis would end, too. It's just wishful thinking.
I remember when Prop 13 was on the ballot. The newspaper reported that if it passed, it would eviscerate the police and fire budgets. It passed, and nothing happened to the budgets.
I don’t think the housing affordability crisis ends and I don’t think that’s the right way to model it. SF has one of, if not the highest, $/sq ft in the US. And prop 13 is suppressing it - estimates indicate that property taxes revenues would double meaning that 2.5k/person would become 5k.
And remember that that 2.5k/person is only for residential properties. commercial properties still fall under prop 13 and that’s about 50-60 of the other tax. So a full repeal would make it closer to 10k/person instead of the current 5k.
I agree the story on rents and home prices would be unclear because ultimately the people might move and just rent out their homes with property taxes baling into the new rental price.
Also seems unlikely. It might depress housing prices and act as a natural counterbalance (but then rents and Col drops too). I think it’s really hard to model.
I don't think housing costs would drop that much, if at all. What matters is the monthly mortgage payment. Property prices drop when property taxes go up, but mortgage payments tends to stay similar.
In one sense that sounds like free money for the state. However, home equity constitutes the largest share of savings for people, and that's more true the lower down the income ladder you go. So you're taking money out of the working- and middle-class. In some circles home equity is considered a poor savings vehicle, but they don't seem to consider that it's the only secured loan most people can access for leveraged investment. It's the only investment available to most people that let's them leverage capital markets the way the very wealthy can.
And FWIW, residential rents also track monthly mortgage payments, so renters aren't likely to see any difference, either. On average renters pay roughly the same amount per month they'd pay as owners, just without building any equity. I suppose they might be slightly better off after accounting for transfer payments (i.e. public services, entitlements, etc), but they'd be even better off if they could become owners rather than renters.
"I don't think housing costs would drop that much, if at all."
That all depends on if people still want to live there, or can afford it. People tend to be sensitive to taxes, especially if they don't see it improving their lives. Businesses can be sensitive to this sort of thing too. And if they leave, people may leave too. California is already at a net negative when looking at joiners vs leavers. It's mostly been lower wage workers, but in recent years middle and high earners have also been leaving. The population is the same as it was 5 years ago.
"Property prices drop when property taxes go up, but mortgage payments tends to stay similar."
That might be roughly true for a person who just purchased and the federal property tax deduction is uncapped. A retiree who is getting a break on taxes is likely to see a big increase. Not to mention if the house is paid off, then there is no mortgage that could offset it.
It's not reset of you inherit, or a bunch of other bullshit exemptions.
We live in a gerontacracy. Every advantage and tax break and handout is given to the elderly and the ladder has fully been pulled up for the new generations.
1. There are many states such as New Jersey or Texas that do not have Prop 13 style laws and their seniors are not suffering excessively. However housing is much more affordable for younger people in those states.
2. States that freeze property taxes have more volatility and boom/bust cycles. You are trading being shielded from tax volatility for increasing economy-wide volatilty and asset price volatility, so the gains are not as high as you think, and seniors are exposed to this volatility indirectly.
3. There are more targeted relief mechanisms available, such as deferring the tax liability until the owner dies for senior owners.
As someone from NJ...you think seniors and young people don't have affordability problems, especially wrt housing here, in the 5th most expensive state to buy a house? (California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Washington, New Jersey, in that order, according to redfin, if you're going by house cost to income ratio, NJ is 6th)
> you think seniors and young people don't have affordability problems?
Of course I don't think that, which is why I didn't say it. That would be a silly thing to write. What is the advantage for you in mischaracterizing what someone wrote and then expending effort to "correct the record" for a statement no one made?
You created a strawman and then knocked it down.
What I actually said: "New Jersey or Texas that do not have Prop 13 style laws and their seniors are not suffering excessively. However housing is much more affordable for younger people in those states."
Both of these statements are demonstrably true. Let's look at the data.
* NJ price to income ratio for housing: 5.5
* mortgage cost burden: 31% of mortgage owners spend more than 30% of their income on housing.
* renter cost burden: 52% of renters spend more than 30% on rent
* CA price to income ratio for housing: 8.0
* mortgage cost burden: 38% of mortgage owners spend more than 30% on housing
* renter cost burden: 58% of renters spend more than 30% on rent
So housing in NJ is more affordable than in CA.
Now, let's look specifically at seniors.
In California:
* 68% of senior renters are cost burdened
* 35% of senior homeowners are cost burdened
In New Jersey:
* 59% of senior renters are cost burdened
* 35% of senior homeowners are cost burdened
So we see that across the board, seniors in NJ are not cost burdened more than in California, and that in fact they are cost burdened a bit less.
Therefore if your solution is to look to Prop 13 style fixes to address cost burdens for either seniors or the general population, then you are not making a data based argument, and in fact the data goes against you, because there is no excess cost burden in states without these property tax freezes.
I don't know if it changes the result significantly, but remember the NJ has very high property taxes, more than double of California. So mortgage cost alone does not paint the full picture.
This is more significant for seniors, who likely have a paid-off home so their main expense is property tax. So being a fixed-income senior with a home is likely more affordable in California than in NJ. The worst thing after retirement is cost increases when you no longer have a salary that goes up with inflation.
Your exact words were "housing is much more affordable for younger people in those states", which, even by the numbers you have cited, is not correct. More affordable? Sure, we are number 5 or 6, not number 1. Much more affordable? Come on now.
And no, I don't think prop 13 style laws would be helpful, it would just create more problems, as it has in California.
Kicking in at retirement age plus limiting it to a single owner occupied property is the key, IMO.
In California, it applies to multiple properties, you can pass it down to your children and it applies to property owned by businesses both commercial and industrial, which is absolutely crazy.
California has basically created a class of landed gentry.
You shouldn't strawman the other side. Us "people who fancy" actually understand that there are real negative side effects. But the money has to come from somewhere.
If not from land taxes, where? Would you like to double sales tax? Or increase income taxes? Every solution costs something, what does yours cost?
> actually understand that there are real negative side effects.
Everything has real negative consequences. One side does not hold the monopoly on negative side effects.
Land is not cheap to repurpose. The Georgism dream that land can be optimally used is a farce. There is significant costs to repurposing land - to make those costs worth it because of the taxes would heavily distort current society, and I think the assumption that this would be desirable compared to the status quo is unproven.
> double sales tax? Or increase income taxes?
Why not the taxes we have? Where is the presumption that taxes need to be changed at all, never mind doubled?
Even if we decide we want to raise taxes, choosing where to do so is delicate. Again, the optimal answer from an economist is not necessarily desirable from an emotional perspective of the people being governed.
> Land is not cheap to repurpose. The Georgism dream that land can be optimally used is a farce. There is significant costs to repurposing land - to make those costs worth it because of the taxes would heavily distort current society, and I think the assumption that this would be desirable compared to the status quo is unproven.
Your friction is real - and already exists.
So the bar for improvement is not no friction.
The bar is less friction, and higher productive use of land, which benefits everyone. Lowering the costs of both housing and business space, while increasing economic output.
That is was economic alignment does, it doesn't just improve one thing, or improve on a one-time or fixed percentage basis.
And less passive, underutilizing, economically-parasitic investments from the rich. (Rich passive investment in land, uses land like Bitcoin for its deflationary nature, which compounds land prices while suppressing its full productive use.
Not raises. Compounds. The more the rich passively invest in land, the more profitable land becomes to passively invest in.
The negative side effects of taxes on labor are enormous, and have distorted humanity probably more than any other factor.
Any consideration of the consequences of taxes also has to consider the consequences of the current taxation.
But taxes have and will always be a transfer of wealth from the working poor to the rich and powerful. People talking about tax reform or more effective and just systems tend to forget this. It's like the lamb having an opinion on how the wolves should share it.
Stating truisms ahead of straw manning me avoids the actual discussion. "Everything has real negative consequences." "Land is not cheap to repurpose." I never said otherwise.
You're right about my estimate being off though and it was a disservice to the discussion. An equivalent revenue from sales tax would require ~2.1%. In SF, that would move the total sales tax from 8.6% to 10.7%; in Oakland, 13.8%. A large increase would likely bend some consumer behavior (chasing sales that have feet, aka move to the informal/grey market).
> Again, the optimal answer from an economist is not necessarily desirable from an emotional perspective of the people being governed.
This is the real difference between us imo. I believe the optimal answer is based on realistic projections on revenue collected and what prevents bankruptcy. The compromise answer is what passes a vote and in fact, the bankrupt answer.
I would prefer we didn't raise taxes and instead reduce spending. But given the complexity of reducing spending and the scale of our deficit, we will have to do both. On the side of raising revenue, a land tax offers a way of taxing a wealth that cannot flee.
HOA are forclosing more than banks in some regions, it's not just trailer parks these days getting hard lessons in being the "fake owner" of your property
> I would argue that this is unpopular not only amongst retirees but everyone. And it would have tons of negative side effects.
Every tax is unpopular and undesireable.
Why would I work if government is taxing my income? Why would I invest? Why would I drive the car, blah blah.
Land tax is easy to collect, fast to pay, hard to avoid or game, and encourages productivity and efficiency.
And this cuddling of boomers who've benefited by piling up gigantic government debts and expect to be paid back (typically holding gov bond) is literally going to destroy the financial system. Part of the benefit of this tax is that if you can't pay for fair value of the land you're preventing others from using, you have to sell and get out, so e.g. a productive family can pay your for it, and use it instead of your now unproductive self. If you don't want that, you have to pay the same tax they would pay. Just because you're retired doesn't mean "your done with your duties to the rest of society and you can just expect free shit and do nothing" _especially_ that your "wealth" is just rent seeking on younger generations.
If boomers keep preventing younger generations from being productive and having opportunities, the economy will dwindle, the pile of of debt and other financial assets will collapse, hyperinfation is going to destroy their paper wealth and they will be starving or worse. Just watch, because I doubt at this point is avoidable anyway.
For what it's worth, the way Israel deals with this is that property tax is levied on the property resident, not the property owner. In other words, when you rent a house, the person who is legally responsible for paying the tax is the renter.
This makes it exceedingly easy to ensure that old people are not affected by property taxes: if you are elderly resident, you simply get a discount. If you are an elderly landlord who owns multiple properties, your younger tenants don't get a property tax discount, and you pay income taxes (not discounted for age) on the rental income. If you are elderly and want to downsize, your property tax discount follows you into the smaller apartment.
The system has its challenges, but it is far superior to Prop 13 and achieves the same goal.
> fixed income at the end of your life in no position really to deal with inflation.
This might be true if you have everything in cash in a safe at your house and plan on taking out fixed amounts for the rest of your life, I guess, but who are those people?
Most people are on social security, which is inflation adjusted.
Others with more wealth have retirement savings, which are likely mostly in bonds and stocks, which weather inflation not too shabbily. Interest rates go up, and banks start actually yielding interest!
Prop 13 passed mostly as a populist revolt against taxes, but in reality it does a lot more for people in their prime of earning and a toooon more for commercial property tax cuts than it does for retirees.
Every other state has better tax deferral mechanisms, and given the tiny fraction of Prop 14 effect that goes to retirees, I don't really buy this back formation of what was going on. If people really voted for such a lie, it wouldn't be the first time with propositions but from the media I've seen from the time I really don't think people were that duped and probably knew the broad effects of Prop 13.
I was alive at the time prop 13 passed. I was a little kid in Ohio. Even I remember the stories that were being circulated on the national news about old people being priced out of their homes in LA. It was a big campaign.
"Big campaign" sounds right. These sort of tax revolt campaigns tend to spread wide, with the hope of passing similar things elsewhere shortly after.
Fortunately, this one did not spread which is very good news, because the long term effects have been absolutely horrific for housing prices in California. However, I hear of other states right now proposing adoption of California's housing crisis via similar tax measures... Hopefully they don't pass and learn the lessons of what has happened here.
Vancouver used to have a land value tax, which was widely credited with the its prosperity up to the ~1960s. However eventually enough homeowners and landowners got sick of paying their fair share and overturned it, which has resulted in Vancouver's housing situation which is possibly even worse than the SF Bay Area's...
And not in small part because Prop 13 disconnects property from housing costs, which leads to political incentives where beneficiaries of Prop 13 embrace policy that causes housing prices to rise precipitously.
Prop 13 or not most people historically resisted zoning changes and pretty much all cities in the country, even in Manhattan, were downzoned dramatically from what was possible as far as infill development the pre war zoning plans. Even today, the trend is never to recognize the housing crisis for what it is and widely upzone, but to just nudge a little more capacity in some containment zone of the city at good arms length from the best of the single family home neighborhoods, in the form of say transit oriented development of certain specific constraining factors, rather than just opening up the floodgates and allowing for market to actually establish prices freely.
> This might be true if you have everything in cash in a safe at your house and plan on taking out fixed amounts for the rest of your life, I guess, but who are those people?
It seems an astonishingly large number of people, including on here, talk as if that were the case despite their actual living and retirement finances. People really hate inflation.
Something about the lizard brain wants the exchange rate between shiny object and edible object to be fixed and gets extremely upset if it changes.
(Or, as is becoming increasingly relevant, the exchange rate between shiny object and flammable fluids)
The exchange rate between shiny objects and edible objects has nothing to do with inflation though; they're both physical objects. Unless people start trading glittery balloons it is quite difficult for shiny objects to inflate and the fluctuations from increasing supply are generally not a problem.
The inflation complaints are people who prefer not to be taxed for saving currency and earning money in fiat. As far as it is a lizard brain thing it's more about principles of fairness in who should be paying taxes and the aversion people have to things taken away from them.
So either your parents were getting $115 from social security, or you are trying to report increase of a year with essentially 0% inflation as if it were the year with 9% inflation.
So the way we fix it is by pulling more tax from net contributors and pushing it via social security so it can be pulled as property taxes. What a disaster.
> Retirees are not on fixed income and haven't been for decades. Social Security gets adjusted for inflation.
Tell me you're not a retiree on social security (or know any) without telling me...
Social security gets adjusted up a very tiny percentage of actual inflation. Watching my elder parent go through this while managing their finances, I'm very aware.
The key bit is that California is relatively unique here. There are a few other states that have Prop-13-like laws, but California's is the most restrictive and incumbent-homeowner-friendly. All those other states (and the ones with nothing similar) seem to get along just fine.
Of course, the solution to increased demand (driving increases in property market value) is to build more housing. Without Prop 13, a big chunk of the NIMBYs who are currently against more housing would likely change their tune if they had to choose between no new housing or much higher property taxes.
I think it would be reasonable and productive to phase out Prop 13 over time, rather than immediately getting rid of it. We could structure it so a property doesn't lose Prop 13 protection until the next time it's sold (and then it never has that protection again). We could completely remove the inheritance loophole (which was tightened up in 2020 but still exists). We could even set a date, say, 10 or 15 years in the future, when re-assessments at market value will start for everyone, regardless of whether or not they've sold. We could also phase in higher allowed assessment percentage increases over time (right now it's capped at 2% per year, but we could, say, add 0.5% to that figure every year for some number of years).
Hell, we could even leave Prop 13 in place as it is today, and just bump up the assessment increase cap to 5% or 10% or something like that. (Texas, for reference, has their own 10% yearly cap on assessment increases.)
There are so many ways to solve this, but all of them are politically unpopular. (Hell, we couldn't even reform Prop 13 as it applies to commercial properties.) As a homeowner in California, I get it, but I still support Prop 13 reform and eventual Prop 13 abolishment.
Most of the other states have not seen the rise in population growth and real estate values seen in CA. There are still places where homes are like 250k or less. There is also way more value drop off outside the metros in most other states with high cost cities such as MA or NY. You could be 30 mins drive from boston in a great 400k home. Try and find that 30 mins out from SF or LA. There just isn't really that fall off in california that you might expect from real estate markets elsewhere. It is like the rising tide has lifted all boats.
This is what people in about five cities in the US think.
I live in San Antonio, a metro of 2M people (city itself is one of the 10 most populous in the US). That's pretty sizable. Median home is between 260K and 310K. That is, of course, with the larger homes you'll find here vs SF/Chicago/LA/etc.
San Antonio is in the middle of the state with 360 degrees of growth and relatively flat. California’s land growth has half of that with hills and mountains near the desirable areas.
It all comes down to zoning. The demand requires capacity and the only way to add it given the geographical constraints are through infill development. Still, cities are getting dragged kicking and screaming to these conclusions, hence the opposition of SB79, as well as the entire concept of SB79 of differential upzoning vs simply widely upzoning. Even just reverting to pre 1960 zoning plans would see LA's zoned capacity rise from the present day 4.5 million (it is in the 90s% as far as population to zoned capacity) or so to something north of 10 million. If you adjust it to the ratio of that pre 1970s zoning plan, when LA had about 2.5 million people in it, the city would be zoned for 20 million with today's population.
In fact that is all that really needs to be done to ameliorate the housing crisis in California: pass a single law that repeals every single zoning adjustment from after say 1960. Or pass a law that mandates a 4:1 ratio of zoned capacity to population. The ship will right itself if it is allowed to.
To be fair 250K homes and under homes are increasingly uncommon and increasingly undesirable. Rural areas with almost zero industry are averaging out at 600-750K. Maybe a bit of a downward trend, but the average salary in the area is like 50K. so it doesn't matter.
While there is certainly some (very) expensive real estate outside of Boston, to a much greater degree than San Francisco, you can actually get a house within a drive for an evening event that's pretty reasonable to a much greater degree than the Bay Area.
> Without Prop 13, a big chunk of the NIMBYs who are currently against more housing would likely change their tune if they had to choose between no new housing or much higher property taxe
I mean, the way you make housing units more affordable is to make more of them, but for existing homeowners of SFH, building condo buildings in their neighborhood will increase their property value because the competition for the remaining lots increase. Given we build close to zero family friendly multi family in this country (ie, appartments buildings have zero family oriented amnenities), there isn’t much in there for nimbys. It’s the right thing to do but you can’t except nimbys to join in on a purely monetary basis.
>appartments buildings have zero family oriented amnenities
This isn't always true. I've seen apartment buildings that have a playground and little astroturf field and some small goals. The kids also are using the pool pretty heavily in every apartment I've lived with one. Some have other facilities like basketball or tennis as well that kids could take up (or use the smooth surface for skating or something).
This is a solved problem in other jurisdictions. Effectively you can just allow seniors to defer their property taxes at low interest rates and it becomes a liability on the house when it is transferred on death.
This is how the government countered the people demanding the end of debtor’s prison. And it’s not “transferred on death” it’s whenever the house is sold whether the owner is alive or not. Property tax is just rent paid to the government and the taxman always gets their dues one way or the other.
Empirically, according to Doucet, a land value tax would only raise average tax rates if you're living on a parking lot, or vacant lot. Aging homeowners would mostly see a slight decline in their property taxes ( California excluded ).
> the idea of being displaced at the end of your life out of the home you already paid off due to market forces you aren't even a participant in is actually widely unpopular even if it makes better economic sense.
Once you are old enough it makes a whole lot more sense to move to places designed to care for the elderly. Living alone in a huge house isn't good for your mental health and it isn't for your physical health, either, once you no longer have the energy to maintain it.
I could use a much smaller house than I have now and a much larger garage for tools, workshops, art studio, etc. But for me, the value of a larger property is that I get to go out of the house and spend time in the garden. Sometimes something as simple as pulling up weeds is a considerable boost to my mental health. Kneeling on a garden bench in the sun in the weather and pulling weeds is not something that's “enjoyable," but it is rejuvenating.
My 92-year-old mom has been the same way. Until one of her daughters moved in, she lived by herself in her house and garden. Just being able to go outside and experience the green space she planned and planted has kept her alive and healthy. If she were in some senior living place, she'd be dead by now. She would have withdrawn into her room and waited for her time.
> Once you are old enough it makes a whole lot more sense to move to places designed to care for the elderly. Living alone in a huge house isn't good for your mental health and it isn't for your physical health, either, once you no longer have the energy to maintain it.
This betrays some things. Not everyone is in a "huge house", and having this bias is going to lead you to bad conclusion. Most people don't have a huge house.
And, more importantly, tax should not be used to force people into one way of living in their latter years. They might be self-sufficient into their early 90s, and the last people who should be determining where they live are people who want to do it.
You handle that the same way income taxes do: the first X amount is exempt, like a standard deduction, applied to the land under someone's primary residence. Pair it with a rolling multi-year average for assessment so value spikes phase in gradually instead of hitting all at once. Keeps the incentive against passive land-holding everywhere else intact, without the blanket caps that also protect speculators. Instead of using one tool to fix it all, you use multiple tools that work together to make efficient systems
> being displaced at the end of your life out of the home you already paid off due to market forces you aren't even a participant in is actually widely unpopular even if it makes better economic sense
Whether it makes economic sense or not, it is extremely inhumane and that matters (or should matter) far more.
This idea that it is ok to kick out (via taxes) someone who spent 40 or 50 years contributing to society just so someone else can make more profit on their home is very sad.
Elderly retired people living in large houses close to where the work is has caused massive social, economic, political, and cultural harm. Young people can no longer afford to buy homes close to work, so they're forced to commute long distances. Their taxes then go in part to pay for the elderly person who lives in a million dollar house with multiple rooms, who receives many tax breaks. The young person cannot afford to start a family, cannot afford to buy a home, loses a lot of time each day on commuting, spends a fortune on commuting, has less time for family, and causes enormous inefficiencies in the job market. This is nothing short of a concerted redistribution of wealth from the young to the old. It's a travesty which the elderly today would not have accepted.
I do not feel sorry for the elderly person sitting on a large and expensive property who demands to spend their final decades squatting on land which could house a family and allow parents to get to work within a reasonable amount of time. They have options the young person does not. They can get a reverse mortgage, for example. They get social security, and draw down on whatever pensions and investments they've accrued over their lives. Their costs are much lower - they don't have children to support. Or they can move, and I'm sorry, but it's not impossible for a retired person to move. Millions of them do it every year all over the country. Often to really nice elderly communities full of activities and specialised care.
I say all of this as someone who leans more libertarian than collectivist. Society is interconnected and interdependent. We cannot function if he keep young people under our boots. Asking the elderly to move is a *very* small price to pay if we expect the young to shoulder the enormous tax and debt burdens said elderly have imposed upon them.
Exactly. And I am appalled by the level of injustice and stupidity (I will explain both) demonstrated by so many comments here.
Injustice, because they refuse to see the other side of the coin, or the full picture, and a decision ignoring the full picture can be just only by accident (at least in common moral systems).
Stupidity, because it betrays a lack of touch with reality. In this regard I am reminded of a recent thread here, where an article about artificial meat was being discussed. An author of the article expressed their uncomfortable feeling when eating the artificial meat, caused by their thought about the unnatural, "lab" origin of that substance. If that article was sincere, that person have probably never visited a slaughterhouse, or killed an animal by their own hands in order to eat it. This kind of cessation of contact with underlying reality behind our everyday experience is quite common in our modern societies.
In order to be succinct, let me just say that historically it was common for elderly people to live in multigenerational households, sharing their space with a younger family and helping (as long as they could) with chores and taking care of children. While that is not the only viable way, and I am in no way against the modern pension system in general (although its current implementations in most if not all western societies have their problems; and also make many people to lose "touch with reality" in the way I alluded to above), it was quite a natural way of handling the issue of old age that reflected constraints under which a human society existed (and still continues to exist today).
Since I feel that the dominant sentiment of the commenters here is based on emotions and "morality" in a way that I believe is inherently evil, I will close this comment with a refrain from emotions and morality, and state a cold-hearted truth: A society that discards its old people might be a bad one to live in but might be able to survive. A society that discards its young people is destined to die. [To avoid misunderstanding: I do not argue that we should discard old people.]
“Beat it, grandma!” “But I’ve lived here all my life, my husband has passed, and all my friends live here!” “Not for long; we’re kicking them out, too!”
That line of thinking sounds insanely unpopular to me and while it might be more efficient in some ways, I think its unpopularity makes it unlikely in a democracy.
Why should the typical old person or couple have a large home all to themselves?
I think (in a semi ideal world) individuals and couples should be entitled to small apartments or tiny houses, which would be cheap enough for an old person on retirement benefits. An average American home is for a family: as the parents age, some of their kids start financing the home, while other kids may move living spaces, or everyone splits up and the house goes to a new family (presumably a couple moving from a small apartment).
>A land tax means that you don't own property but rent it.
A few comments:
1) we already have property taxes so I don't understand the objection; a land value tax is just a property tax with a different way of assessing value.
2) I don't think this idea of "not owning property, only renting it" is actually that crazy if you take a long term view over it. Land is a finite, shared resource. We already acknowledge that you don't have absolute rights over land that you own in the same way you do over, say, a toaster. We place all kinds of restrictions on what you can do with it, we tax its ownership, we have eminent domain laws, etc.
The idea of treating land as a pure asset has had a lot of negative social effects and ultimately will lead to a kind of neo-feudalism where the megarich own everything and the underclasses are perpetual renters.
>The idea of treating land as a pure asset has had a lot of negative social effects and ultimately will lead to a kind of neo-feudalism where the megarich own everything and the underclasses are perpetual renters.
The idea that land is not a pure asset leads to regular feudalism.
No, some resources aren't shared (for example, human capital: things that I know how to do aren't shared, since nobody can 'borrow' my knowledge) or are effectively infinite (for instance, you can travel arbitrarily far into outer space and not run out of space).
> Everything is a finite shared resource.
> That's the point of ownership.
I think the point is that (up to a limit that we're a long way from reaching) we can make more toasters to satisfy any additional demand that arises for toasters. But we can't make more land to satisfy any additional demand that arises for land. So we have to share the land in a way that we don't have to share toasters.
> The idea that land is not a pure asset leads to regular feudalism.
Yup. And despite the claims made that it's a solution for the common folk, the people who "own" and can make decisions about the land will be the megarich, so it will be feudalism, with rent due on the land you own.
You are mistaken on several grounds, but the most glaring issue is that you do not properly understand the concept of property/ownership.
For all practical purposes property/ownership is a service provided by society, not a static "attribute" of stuff (the only exception is when you live entirely without any sort of contact with other people, in which case, however, the concept of property becomes void, at least practically). And any service carries a cost with it.
For instance, in our kind of societies, the institution of property requires, at the very least: (1) legislature that defines what property is and all the related rules, (2) the administrative part that handles property transfers and other issues, and keeps the record of who own what, (3) the judiciary system that interprets the legislation and resolves disagreements and other issues related to property, (4) the police or some other body that enforces and protects the whole system within the society, (5) the army that protect the property of the society against the claims of external groups. In our societies many of these institutions carry also other functions, but enabling the system of ownership is an important part of their job. And this service is very expensive --- so not paying any taxes on property means that those costs must be covered by some other sources (e.g. selling natural resources, income taxes, ...) and, usually, lead to a transfer of wealth within the society.
So the idea that you just "own" something (your house for instance) and any kind costs of that imposed on you by the society/government are unjust is completely and patently misguided. If anything, the opposite it true.
(That does not mean that the tax system must be necessarily constructed to reflect that, as there is no single and obvious correct way to design a tax system, and other important considerations enter that issue.)
And owners pay taxes on (some of the) assets they have, land being a big one. Hoarding mentality may have been fine for frontier wild west but ain't much compatible with modern societies which are chock full of humans in all the sweet spots.
Expectation that this comes with 0 cost just because it would suit you is a bit naive, innit
displaced because the land has become so valuable you can no longer pay the tax on it and have to sell for a massive profit?
boo hoo? My generation has never even had access to affordable housing. Sorry you have to take your millions and live on a smaller property for your last few years.
The first time I heard about a Land Value Tax it sounded great. You can then go read where it's been tried and find that it's extremely hard to implement.
As just one example, if I place becomes popular then suddenly the taxes rise and people have to move out. Lots of people hate that idea and so vote it away. And then LVT no longer works.
You can't tax "the land". You tax the owner. The money doesn't come from the land but whatever source of income the owner has. That's what you are really taxing.
To actually tax the land, the owner needs to sell it, but who is going to buy taxed land? You are forced to sell it to pay the tax.
So taxed land, in the end, loses value, because it's sold more and bought less, and the source of income goes away, because he was forced to sell the land.
> Economist Henry George in the 1800's, pointed out that taxing land, but not the property on it, incentivizes efficient use of land, because holding land for its passive (parasitic) return even when underused, becomes unprofitable when the land is taxed in proportion to the value it can enable.
That sounds like a terrible idea to me. Efficiency isn't everything. Small stripes owned by many people or by many smaller companies it's less efficient than one hedgefond owning everything and yet it has disadvantages.
A forest is much less efficient than a mall and yet, the forest might still be more important.
There's also no way for a government to effectively determine the potential value of land. Asking them to do it means inviting disaster and corruption.
> A forest is much less efficient than a mall and yet, the forest might still be more important.
This is a good example of a very common problem: data isn't objective, it needs to be interpreted. Metrics will give you information, but they aren't the full story. That's why Goodhart's Law is so prolific. You can't just look at data and act on it without context. It depends what your actual goals are. And a huge part of that is that we have to consider how much we value things, especially things that haven't already been assigned monetary value. Sure, we can assign monetary value to things like a forest (economists do this), but it would also be wildly inappropriate to just accept those estimates as cold hard facts void of interpretation too. What's the saying? Reality has a surprising amount of resolution.
In a weird twist of irony our efforts to be lazy end up costing us a lot of work. But that's also because there's two types of lazy: short term and overall work. We used to say we want to hire programmers that are lazy because they'll find the most efficient way to do something. But now we don't revere that kind of lazy, we like the kind of lazy that procrastinates. Do the quick cheap thing now, telling ourselves that we'll make it better in the future, knowing that's a lie. That pattern isn't unique to programming, it's just marshmallows.
The main problem with this view is that land value is laggard to the economy. You will end up taxing people more than what the land is actually worth during downturns, instigating a vicious feedback loop to cause further problems. The logical path is to tax money where there is money - income.
What gives the taxman a right to the fruits of a persons labor? There is of course no other argument for this than "or we kill you". Tax on income is another form of slavery and serfdom. Especially when you consider that a large proportion of slaves through history were free to roam and had to find their own source of income to pay a weekly or monthly fee to their owner.
All other forms of taxation at least have arguments to ethically justify them, including land taxation.
The argument is not "pay taxes or we kill you", it's "pay taxes or get out of our town". No one is a slave, if the government asks for too much and provides too little, people will move.
I live in a town with non-trivial taxes. It was my personal decision to move there, no one said "move there or we kill you". When choosing a place to live, I could have moved to some other city/state/country with lower taxes, but I've decided not to. I like that we have working utilities, parks, roads, schools, law enforcement, stores. The town had a vote to increase town tax to raise money for schools and libraries, more than 70% approved.
I don't care about your ethical reasoning about tax types, if you want to live in my town, you contribute to the town's well-being. If you refuse to, on any grounds... well, maybe some other place will be a better fit for you.
Roads, libraries etc. Why is it better that those are paid from income taxes rather than property taxes? Or sales taxes or tariffs etc?
You're arguing "end justifies the means" and "might is right". "My town" and all as you argue.
Unless you truly believe that people choose where and how they will be born, which of course might be the case. And then they only have themselves to blame, as you say.
I'd like to hear how you think land tax is ethically better. You mention serfdom, which is most similarly linked to land tax as the serfs would have to pay the lord for existing on that place. Likewise, your mention of roaming slaves forgets that they had to pay some value every period and were not allowed to simply not work, which is more similar to property tax where you must pay regardless of income or ability or pay.
I mention it right there in the very same sentence, you must have stopped halfway.
> I'd like to hear how you think land tax is ethically better.
First things first - "better" is a bit strong of a word since there has never been any argument made in favour for taxing labour except for "might is right" or "the end justifies the means". If you have an argument except for those to why it is ethically right by itself to tax somebody for working, then I'd like to hear it.
Now for the argument in favor of land tax:
Nobody has any inherent right to "own" land. The concept of "owning" is an invention and is also completely absurd once you think deeply and clearly about it. God created all land and it has been there for millions of years before anybody set foot upon it and claimed ownership. Claiming to own the land - and what more claiming to have a right to transfer that ownership to anybody but your children - is something of an abomination.
Compared to owning your labour and the fruits of your labour. Which is an extension of owning your own body. Or owning something you've purchased and can bring with you wherever you go.
The government itself is an extension of the concept of land ownership. So it is natural that they would levy taxes on their vassals - people claiming ownership of any land. The government vouches for your unjustifiable claim on this land and you pay them for the privilege. It also fits very well with the concept of governments being limited geographically in extension.
I don't claim that there aren't very good arguments against taxing land, but there are at least ethical and logical arguments for it, while taxation of labour have no such arguments in favor.
You can also argue ethically in favour of taxation on foreign trade - tariffs. Because in such, the government doesn't interfere in what people do within their country.
> You mention serfdom, which is most similarly linked to land tax as the serfs would have to pay the lord for existing on that place.
You forget that the serfs are given no right to sell the land, which is why they are serfs and not lords. That's the most important factor. The lord certainly did pay a land tax to the king.
Yeah, because the value of your land just went up and you didn't do anything to make that happen. Only right that excess value goes back to society and reduces the tax burden of the working class.
If you're a professional landowner and investor, and the taxes on one parcel of land in your portfolio went up because someone built Disneyland near it, this is fine. You might want to sell that parcel out of your portfolio now; or you might want to do something like build a hotel on it catering to Disneyland-visitors, which will earn you enough in profits to more than make up for the higher land tax.
If you're an ordinary person who owns the home you live in, and they build Disneyland next to it, most of the ways that the value of the land your home is on increases are useless or actively harmful to you. It's actively bad for you if you have to sell your family home and move somewhere else because you can no longer afford the taxes on it. You're probably not a professional real estate developer who knows how to effectively use the land as an investment, after all, you just wanted to live somewhere stable.
In fact, the increase of value of your land and the consequent tax increase under Georgist land value schemes, would be so bad for you, that you might decide to protestthe construction of that Disneyland to begin with. This is typically called "NIMBYism", and it happens all the time even under current property-tax schemes because the negative externalities of many different types of construction are bad for the quality of life of existing homeowners.
> It's actively bad for you if you have to sell your family home and move somewhere else because you can no longer afford the taxes on it.
But it's no problem of course that several generations of people currently can never afford to own a home of their own even though they contribute enormously to the economy and to society through their highly productive labour?
Ten times more people have already been forced to move away from where they grew up because of real estate prices than would ever have to be forced to move away because of land value taxes.
A hundred times more people can never afford a home because of real estate prices than would ever have to be forced to sell their homes because of land value taxes.
How is this different from just having higher taxes on capital gains? (Obviously higher capital gains taxes would also impact other assets, but I mean in the context of land. Seems like both result in the same effect if you're able to defer LVT until sale.)
> How is this different from just having higher taxes on capital gains?
The goal of the deferment is to stop a negative outcome (the resident being forced to sell their property because of higher LVT taxes) from occurring until the resident actually wants to do so.
Seems like a huge risk, what if the land then deprecate after appreciating for a while? You'd owe a lot of money from the appreciation years, but the sale of the house doesn't cover it because it's now depreciated
Or you can.. you know, sell the now expensive property, buy one cheaper which doesn't have such appreciation, and enjoy those sweet money gained by doing nothing (well almost). If you invested in stock and gained significantly, you should also not be taxed more on those gains (and even more in tax progressive regimes in most jurisdictions)? Wealth is wealth at the end, you gain more, you pay taxes.
I get it, people are inherently selfish, most don't want to give back to society more than absolutely minimum to keep them from prison, and this mentality is way more common in US or most of 3rd world than say Europe. But then don't complain when state institutions like public schools and healthcare are utter crap, something about cake and stuff.
Why is it assumed true that individuals do not contribute to the increasing appeal of their neighborhood?
What if I voted for pro-theme park politicians? Or what if I volunteered my time to clean up the community parks and shared space? What if I helped improve the reputation of my child’s school by volunteering and donating to the music department?
My taxes fund the maintenance of public infrastructure and services, and my actions support the civic good. If I vote to be cheap or generous with taxes, or choose to be lazy or ambitious in community support, that all contributes to the desirability of the land around me.
> Why is it assumed true that individuals do not contribute to the increasing appeal of their neighborhood?
Two things are true:
1. I should have been more precise in my language. "You didn't do anything to make that happen" is a useful generality and not a prescription of every single individual in the community. In this case, we're talking about fairness - which I don't actually care much about myself, but is a point that people most often can emotionally identify with. But, to continue, if you're carrying all that water on behalf of your land value, then good for you! You likely have an existing stake in the community, other than the land that you own (maybe the businesses or houses or other property built on that land or you own a local services business). That is great! The fairness comes from owning the finite resource of land, and not something others can provide (housing, businesses, etc.). I hope you do continue to contribute to your local community and increase its appeal!
2. Your fixation on this point reveals a very fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of an LVT (surely partially my fault). It has to do with efficient taxation. Dollar equal, it's better that your taxes come from the value of the fixed resources of your community rather than things that can be increased. Because then you don't have a depressing effect on productivity and the things, other than land, that make your community nice. It's better that you keep more money from the things you _do_ for your community instead of the monopolies you hold in your community.
I disagree with the fundamental premise on both parts.
> "You didn't do anything to make that happen" is a useful generality and not a prescription of every single individual in the community.
In fact, everyone does contribute, positively or negatively, to their community. Either through involvement or absenteeism, or somewhere in between.
> Your fixation on this point reveals a very fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of an LVT
The goal is obvious and not a misunderstanding. The goal is a bad goal, precisely because it punishes positive involvement in the community. To improve the community means to increase your own cost of staying.
Imagine someone wants to avoid displacement due to their taxes increasing beyond their ability to pay. I don’t know why they would want to stay in their economically “inefficient” house, but perhaps it’s because home is where the heart is and they have sentimental attachment to their home.
If they want to keep your housing costs down, the best thing to do is poison the ground (metaphorically or literally) because it decreases the “productivity” of the land. Box stores in America famously pay low property taxes because building a box store actually decreases property values - they’re expensive to demolish and limited in utility, while being an eye sore that makes the neighborhood higher traffic and less undesirable. Mississippi as a state is cheap because the voters used the government to destroy public services - it’s in someone’s best interest to do this in a Georgism world if they don’t want to be regularly displaced.
Quite the contrary, it rewards positive involvement in the community and it punishes anti social involvement in the community (leaving your lot empty, letting your neighbors create a vibrant community you do not contribute to, and then selling at a large profit anyway). The reward is the taxes you're not paying on the positive productivity you're bringing to your community (which is how we're currently punishing those who make their communities nicer).
> If they want to keep your housing costs down, the best thing to do is poison the ground (metaphorically or literally) because it decreases the “productivity” of the land
Yes, if you collapse multi-dimensional problems into a single dimension you can find many logical oddities. If I wanted an easier time finding a doctors appointment, I should murder every non healthcare professional in my local area until all of their calendars are totally clear. Wanting cheaper healthcare is evil! You're really saying things for the sake of saying them and I'm not going to engage further or explain to you when you're saying irrelevant things.
> it’s in someone’s best interest to do this in a Georgism world if they don’t want to be regularly displaced.
Under the majority of proposed LVT policies (and the ones I support) the vast majority of American housing would see a decrease in net property taxes paid since the majority of American's Building / Land value ratio is orders of magnitude higher than the average parking lot, land speculator, etc.
> I should murder every non healthcare professional
Crazy comparison to Walmarts lowering their own property tax because building a Walmart makes future land use less attractive.
(Same thing applies to gas stations which do literally poison their own land)
> I'm not going to engage further or explain to you when you're saying irrelevant things.
Don’t engage that’s fine, but I gave a specific example of a common way to use land (box stores), which explicitly breaks the LVT model. People today use land for many economic activities that are expensive to repurpose, or impose negative externalities.
Liquidity is a value of its own. 10% equity in a $1M non-fungible residentially-zoned lot is much less valuable than $100K in cash, ready to wire at a moment's notice.
"the value of your land just went up and you didn't do anything to make that happen"
Ben, with that argument, when someone wants to pay you $1M for "bengarcia.dev", you would not take it because you didn't do anything other than pay $12 to the registrar.
I was pointing to the argument that "you didn't do anything to make it happen. Only right that excess value goes back to society and reduces the tax burden of the working class."
Sounds like Obama's "If you’ve got a business, you didn't build that" argument (though Obama might have just screwed up the words, or maybe he simply had a Kinsley gaffe, aka a Freudian Slip).
The land owner DID work for it. He BOUGHT that land (and also the option that it could go up, or down, in value) with the sweat of his hard earned work or savings, or that of their family or business partners.
OP's wording states that he would favor confiscating value generated by the acquisition if such value happened because the market's perceived value increased.
It's basically a communist wealth redistribution logic.
My point is that if someone were to offer $1M for OP's "bengarcia.dev" domain, that OP would not send $999,988 ($1M minus $12 bucks of registration) to the Federal Government.
Yes Ben, The US Government IS READY TO TAKE YOUR GIFT!
Are you making the argument that land banking is economically productive? Or a more esoteric point about the how people "earn" money? Because land banking is economically unproductive, and there isn't much dispute about that. I'm much less interested in a philosophical argument about whether you believe land banking is definitionally money earned or realised.
“land banking is economically unproductive, and there isn't much dispute about that”
I think you are confusing current utilization with economic productivity. There is an opportunity cost in hoding the land but land can also have economic value in the option. It’s the owner choice if he values its use even if it’s waiting for the option to come through and values it more than whatever alternative a self professed smart politician or OP’s abstract “society” might propose.
Whats’s next? Taxing you for your unused bedrooms, unused cars, unused clothes in your closet, unused nose rings, etc etc?
Just because some policymaker can identify a more productive use for someone’s property does not mean the policymaker knows the owner’s opportunity cost or future options or even risk better than the land owner.
An even better argument might be why do we need to tax at all? It’s not that governments are the pinnacle of capital allocation efficiency. After some useful level, governments are basically corruption machines ESPECIALLY IN CALIFORNIA. Just look at their homeless and illegals industrial complex.
That article is ridiculous “More expensive tomorrow, more affordable today”. It reads like a predatory credit card offer and is full of what if’s.
High property taxes pushing down the sales price of a house does not help the buyer or seller. The buyer is going to pay the same, just more in taxes vs the loan, and the seller is going to get less because high taxes have reduced the value of their home.
If you don't want to pay the taxes, thanks to Disneyland you can now sell your land for a nice fat gain, buy cheaper land elsewhere, and pocket the difference. And whoever bought your land will likely use it for the social good (maybe build a hotel or something).
I would imagine that if Disneyland were built next door, that might be in the cards regardless of the tax situation...
It's just a reality of life that not every homeowner can possibly be entitled to fully control what gets done with the land around them, and that's going to cause some friction.
It's a difficult job to navigate who gets to decide what, while still enabling necessary development. LVT is just one of the more elegant ways to do this.
I'm not a big LVT fan - pushing for maximally productive use of land is going to result in displacing people, displacing small businesses, displacing artistic/cultural/environmental spaces, etc.
I would much rather see an overall assets tax that scales with the value of the assets. That would incentivize more smaller businesses, long-term thinking, and wealth distribution. It would hit big corporations in the same way a LVT would, forcing them to be more and more productive with their assets the more they have, without pricing out smaller entities.
I think that there's something about LVT, but your dismissal is very shallow and why it's not been implemented so far.
I don't _want_ $1M, I want to live in my house that I bought and lived in for years. Getting money I don't need and having to live in a place I don't want to live in is _not_ a positive situation.
I don't think some extra taxes on expensive land is the red line you appear to believe it is. People who own expensive land have many options the rest of the world could only dream of, including reverse mortgages. Meaning no one is actually forcing anyone off their land. They're just being asked to pay some extra taxes. If you believe tax is theft, I can see why this is agitating, but I do not share that view.
I do not share that "taxation is theft" view either. And I agree that owning expensive land is a privileged position. But the concern of being pushed out of one's home because of an increase in tax is real, "just sell it" is not a viable solution, houses and locations are not fungible.
Maybe reverse mortgages are the answer, I'm not sure, I'll admit I'm not very knowledgable about this.
Why do you believe that you should be allowed to preserve your present lifestyle in amber at a (very minor incremental) cost to economic prosperity for all of society?
If only this were true, we wouldn't have homeowners constantly fighting against new development or construction. Many homeowners treat their primary residence as an investment.
> If only this were true, we wouldn't have homeowners constantly fighting against new development or construction. Many homeowners treat their primary residence as an investment.
You'll be very hard pressed to find any home owner who actually thinks in this cartoonish way.
When people oppose changing the character of their home neighborhood it has nothing to do with "treating their primary residence as an investment". It is because they selected a place to live, to call home, based on some criteria that they liked. Everyone does. A home is a big commitment, so you spend a lot of time researching exactly where you want to settle down for the next many decades. You pick an area you like, a neighborhood you enjoy.
For some people that might be quite rural, for some people distant suburban, for others near-city suburban, for others inner-city center. Whichever type of area you select, it is because that's the kind of area you personally enjoy the most. Somehow this obvious truth is controversial on HN for reasons I don't understand, but it is the truth. People select what makes them happy, no surprise.
So, when people oppose seeing their suburban area torn down to build highrises, it has absolutely nothing to do with home values or investments.
People oppose it because they very intentionally chose to live in a suburb far away from highrises and now they see those imposed on them. Of course they're unhappy. Basic human nature, nothing to do with investments.
If someone feels this is not so, I'd appreciate an explanation of your viewpoint.
In my experience the vast majority of NIMBYs do not care about how much their property is worth. They just really don’t want the area they live in to change, because they think all change is bad.
Obviously. If you live in a single family home next door to Disneyland you’re ducking over all the people who want to stay in a hotel there. You should have to pay for that privilege.
>If we view raw nature as a common inheritance of mankind, then paying a tax on land is how the exclusionary use of it
This will have some of the unfortunate effect of collectivism. We don't want the govt to tax you into poverty.
A simpler overall approach (I've left out the nuances) would be to have an equal amount of land per person completely tax free. Individuals can then rent out their land for others to use as needed. Forests/rivers/conservation lands etc. can be seen as truly a common inheritance of mankind and should generally have the least of commercial activity.
p.s - a govt will never agree to such an arrangement because it will not favor them.
>I'm curious as to how you think we should divide up who gets what plots, can you explain how that works?
This is not going to be easy. But it can be done even if it's done imperfectly. For example all the fertile land can be divided equally and the infertile ones equally - so an individual will have multiple plots. There are other issues also - for example what happens if someone decides to have 10 + children. In certain locations around the world people have essentially out bred the land resources that they have.
Of course one might ask why should one bother with all of this complexity I stated above? One has to compare it with the current situation which I think is the greater of the evils:
1) government decides the property tax. In many situations people are edged out of their own properties because they cannot afford the property tax.
2) it goes against the very principle that citizens own their land and not the government. The current state of affairs is the other way around.
3) People do not have ways to live off their own land like they used to in the past, now they have to have jobs. If they do not have jobs then they have to have a social security, which leads to a whole bunch of other issues.
4) tax complications.
Let me phrase the overall problem in another way - how do we prevent government from excessively controlling our lives, and have the citizens truly owning their own land without having to 'rent' it from the government?
I read it like “of the land you own, up to x amount is tax exempt”. Which makes perfect sense, and encourages ownership transfer and de-aggregation. Where aggregation of land plots actively increases land use efficiency, that efficiency gain is expected to be large enough to offset the added tax.
I disagree. A major premise of Georgism is efficient use of high demand land. E.g. housing close to high wage workplaces in cities. If we make exemptions for people to sit on land forever - who do not need or want to work in those workplaces - a major structural efficiency is lost. Instead of the land owner building high density housing on that land, they just retire on it forever, locking up productive land which could have housed 10 families. For this to work, all land needs to be taxed proportionate to its value. Yes, it's annoying to have to move because your house is suddenly worth $2M, but that's a pretty great problem to have, all things considered. In most places that tax free money - more than most people will earn in a lifetime.
Raise X in land tax and then you spend it evenly amongst the population. Anyone using less than their fair share gets a bonus, anyone uses more has to pay.
If you just allow using X value, but tax free, then those who use less don’t get rewarded.
Effectively one non transferable share, one per citizen, with proceeds as a dividend.
> p.s - a govt will never agree to such an arrangement because it will not favor them.
IDK, governments tend to align with what results in the most economic activity being created / moved into their country ("growth"). If you were able to convince that overall economic growth would be multiple times higher over a few decades with the system, it might just become appealing.
A problem I see with implementation in the US, though, is that local municipalities are who tax land and property value, so entire rural counties and cities would have their funding stunted. And asking the government to buy into that while subsidizing low-growth areas for a long time (decades / forever, if a rural area never develops) is a really hard sell.
> A simpler overall approach (I've left out the nuances) would be to have an equal amount of land per person completely tax free
I like the thought, but the challenge in most places is that the poor are already paying massive "negative tax" in the form of various social subsidies.
So if you add tax exemptions on top of it, it becomes increasingly impractical to raise enough taxes.
And no, it can't be done simply by taxing the rich more. That should be done too, in my view! But the math is simply such that we need a pretty broad tax base to support our spending.
So a data center pays the same taxes as a homeowner, foot for foot? It seems unfair at first, but then it occurs to me that data centers would not be so desirable if they were not paying higher taxes. If land value tax helped to pop the data center bubble it would make the more off-putting aspects (organic farming is a less efficient use of land than factory farms) more palatable. Why not have a hybrid approach, where the local community can decide to apply different types of tax systems to different types of land and land uses?
A hedge fund or a lawyer office with with a huge income but a a small office pays some tax. A sandwich shop close to them which barely had ends meet pays the same amount of tax.
I believe we should tax hedge funds much more than sandwich shops.
wonderful -- now take the modern case where the most fertile land, covered with farming, is converted to cement and home sales due to 100x immediate cash returns. The price? pavement is forever
I wouldn't say it's coordinated. This is an old article, published in June. A lot of people came to the land economics blog from the ACX article that ran today, someone likely saw this one and then posted it to HN.
If an island produces 2 burgers a day and has 3 inhabitants: one is rich, another is the poorest worker who can afford a burger, and the third is indigent, the rich person buys his burger, the poorest worker buys the second burger, and the indigent buys nothing, because there are only 2 burgers.
So a socialist sees this and claims he will tax the rich to give a burger to the indigent.
He taxes the rich as much as necessary to ensure that the indigent gets the burger.
As the worker tries to pay more for his burger, the price rises, so the socialist raises the tax as much as necessary to ensure that the indigent still gets the burger.
So the next day, the rich person buys his burger, the indigent buys another burger, and the poorest worker goes hungry, because there are only 2 burgers.
The result is the same if the socialist taxes the rich, prints money, or takes on debt. He always takes the burger from the poorest worker.
So taxes and public spending are always paid by the poorest workers. It does not matter where the socialist gets the money from: he always taxes the poorest workers.
I would challenge you to point out exactly where in OP's comment that he advocates abolishing all taxes except land taxes. I see only a comparison to taxing land vs property.
Lars here. I run the Center for Land Economics with Greg (we wrote the OP blog post). We are not maximalist single taxers.
Henry George was obviously a Single Taxer, but "Georgism" has a generally broader meaning than that. Some Georgists are single taxers, but not all, including Greg and I.
When we talk to elected officials, we don't even talk about Henry George all that much (I did in the ACX article series because it all started with the progress and poverty book review). We mostly speak of "Land value return" and our focus is mostly on pragmatic revenue neutral tax shifts to LVT.
If I start espousing the great ideas of economist Karl Marx in a long comment I will forgive you for assuming that I may be a bit of a Marxist unless my comment has clear caveats to the contrary.
The comment advocates for Georgeism. If they disagree they can say so and elaborate on which non-LVT taxes they support. They haven't because my read on them is correct.
Karl Marx had a lot of great ideas that have been integrated into our modern liberal democracies (antitrust laws, labor unions, public schooling, etc). One can have a nuanced discussion of Das Kapital without being a communist. If you assume otherwise, that's your own cognitive blind spot.
I never said communist. But yes, you can pick and choose ideas from different thinkers. That said, what Nevermark wrote fits squarely within orthodox Georgeism.
They're free to prove me wrong by saying that they're in favour of sales tax or income tax or capital gains tax. That would prove to me that they're just taking the idea that "land value tax is good" without buying into Georgeism as a whole. But I'm confident we'll never see such a comment.
Why care about wealth disparity at all as long as everyone is better off? If I offered you to double your real wealth but also Bezo's real wealth, would you reject that offer just because wealth disparity went up?
Because obscene levels of wealth disparity makes everyone worse off. Power is a zero sum game.
If I were offered to double your real wealth but also double Bezos's real wealth, of course I would take that deal! I would benefit from it. But if you offered to double the real wealth of everyone, what would that even mean?
You are confusing money and wealth. We can all be richer. The vast majority today has riches that a medieval king could have never dreamed of. Exotic fruits year around. Magic devices. Healthcare that goes beyond anything medieval people could have imagined.
Yes, unlike economics, politics is zero-sum. The solution to that is to fix the political system, not to destroy the things that are working great.
Some political power is probably unavoidable, no matter the system and no matter the wealth distribution. We can do lots of things though to weaken that effect. Obvious options range from a simple campaign finance reform to more impactful things like sortition or election by jury.
I like Georgism, but I don't think it should be limited to just LVT. I think ownership of all natural resources (especially scarce ones) should be taxed at an aggressively progressive rate. Own one oil well? Cool. Own enough oil wells to supply the entirety of the Allied Forces throughout the duration of the European Theater in World War 2? Meh.
What if your only relationship with land is that you rent an apartment, but from that apartment you build a $10M/year revenue social network? How should that be taxed? Should it at all?
I believe they described a system in which only natural resources are taxed. That's how I read "Georgeism but applied to all natural resources, not just land value". Income is not a natural resource which is why I asked them how they think it should be taxed, if at all.
I meant to suggest Georgeist natural resources taxes as an alternative to the current property tax scheme.
I'm not sure strict Georgeist policies hold up in a world where so much value is created digitally. It creates the perverse incentive to focus only on digital value creation rather than physical, and that's how you end up with a fragile or lopsided economy based solely on financialization (U.K.) or advertising (U.S.A.).
GP doesn't appear to be advocating for abolishing all tax. The thrust of it seems to be to abolish property tax and replace with a land value tax. There's no mention of abolishing income, capital gains, sales, use, etc. taxes.
Maybe don't attack a straw man you've stood up yourself?
I'm pretty certain Henry George would be very happy with pigovian taxes like a carbon tax as well.
Income tax it's definitely something he'd not prefer because it reduces incentive to do something we want you to do. Better to tax windfalls and undesirable things
Cool, but just bringing up Georgism doesn't mean the commenter wants to go all-in full Georgist. People can agree with part of a philosophy and not all of it. But we don't know, so we should assume good faith, read the comment charitably (per HN guidelines), and argue against what the commenter actually said, not what we might assume they believe.
I don't mind land value tax! Like you, I think it's one of many valid kinds of tax that a government can put on its citizens to achieve various social goals. Hence, I am not a Georgeist.
You can tax certain things a certain amount and you get diminishing returns. For example, if you had a 50% wealth tax, it would stop collecting anything pretty quickly and would cause pretty big economic disruption.
Land value tax has the potential to collect a lot of money with less disruption.
There's like $20 trillion worth of capitalized land value in the USA. That could mean like $1 trillion a year on-going assuming 5% discounting. Land rent is a perpetual stream of wealth.
There's only $8 trillion billionaire wealth. So already 5%/year would be less. And there's a huge incentive and ability to avoid it by moving.
And I rarely ever even hear suggestions for wealth tax rates around 5%. So then if you had a wealth tax, well land is wealth, and you'd be leaving a ton on the table as you could still have the land value tax at 5% of the capitalized value.
That money could be spent on public services that poorer people will benefit from more like transit, schools, or even local hospitals and subsidized healthcare. A typical point by LVT supporters here is that these services have the impact of raising land rents.
Most taxes have this dynamic:
tax -> invest in public services poor people use -> land rents go up -> land owners benefit
LVT has this dynamic:
Tax land -> invest in public services poor people use -> land rent goes up -> tax land more so land owners don't benefit
Landlords, developers, builders etc. should earn the return on the constructed housing, not the land.
> There's like $20 trillion worth of capitalized land value in the USA. That could mean like $1 trillion a year on-going assuming 5% discounting. Land rent is a perpetual stream of wealth.
Leasing the land of the US? That's your big revelation?
listen to the other commenter, fixing it means reducing wealth disparity.
And what is a reasonable level? And what evidence do you have that LVT can't achieve that? Maybe LVT creates such an increase in productivity it creates a virtuous cycle where land values increase so LVT increases and we can pay for so many public services and subsidies for the poor.
Idk but saying it's fixed when it's reasonable is really not answering the question.
I don't have exact numbers for what "a reasonable level" is off hand, but "a heck of a lot lower than now" would be a great start.
Again, the onus is on you to describe a mechanism by which abolishing most forms of taxes will drastically reduce wealth discrepancy. I'm not arguing against LVT, you're the one who's arguing against everything that's not LVT.
Tell me where I argued against everything that's not LVT lol
Again strawman and false dichotomy.
I can't help if you think LVT wouldn't reduce the disparity sufficiently. I'm saying that it's possible it does. I outlined the process how. You don't accept it that's fine. But I do think a big LVT would make a heck of a difference.
Again, that doesn't mean I'm against every and any other tax that could also make a difference.
If you exclude others from a rectangle of land, you are imposing that exclusion on others and the others are due consideration. The rest of the property stack is good -- improvements require investment, investment requires returns, so binding the returns to the investment is important and creates incentives for good stewardship and skin-in-the-game decision making etc -- it's "just" the foundation that is problematic.
Georgists want to tackle this with a Land Value Tax, I tend to think it would be difficult to make this robust against highly motivated attack and the better approach is long-term leases with similar duration to building depreciation schedules. In either case, the idea is that capital appreciation of the dirt (which is really capital appreciation of the right to exclude others from the dirt) goes to public coffers, improvement value goes to the people who made the improvements. That's fair.
Of course, there's also the question of how to get there from here, and one way to do it without guillotines would be to tie the extraordinary tax treatment of property to conversion into a 99 year lease (and then, after 99 years, new issuance could target the ~30 year range). "Sure, you can have your 1031 capital gains tax exemption and pay no tax on the money you obtained by holding on to the right to exclude others from an increasingly popular rectangle of land, but only if you sign up to eventually be part of the solution rather than part of the problem."
> If you exclude others from a rectangle of land, you are imposing that exclusion on others and the others are due consideration.
I don't think this is a reasonable deformation of the notion of ownership nor externalities.
Use of owned assets, within legal boundaries, allows exclusive of use.
If you're complaint is about the current asset allocation, that's wildly different than either Georgism/LVT or externalities. There is a philosophical there-there, but I really don't grok a feasible defense of your claim; your supporting points are reasonable under a Rawlsian veil defense.
It is the notion of land ownership as a fundamental right that is the deformation.
If you make the legitimacy of property rights over land foundational to your philosophy, then of course they can't be challenged within that framework, but that's tautological and uninteresting -- I simply challenge your framework instead. Why should I accept it? In centuries past, a structurally identical framework -- ownership over human beings -- was used to rationalize and administer the institution of slavery, so unless you want to defend slavery then you must accept that the legitimacy of property rights is contingent on their specifics.
Eh, I get where you are coming from. However, you should accept it because the people with the social authority to coerce through guns or imprisonment require you to do so, instead of operating in a vacuum. Plus, land ownership makes for a much clearer system of institutions (which economists of all stripes agree are fundamental to prosperity).
Further, relaxing land ownership doesn't make current occupation an externality, which was the original claim. It's a categorical error to mix externalities with morals.
Really? Argument from authority? If (actual) communists had the guns, would might make them right about property? For someone who wants to throw categorical stones, you sure seem to have a loose grip on the is/ought distinction.
Thanks for trying to explain how owning land imposes an externality on others. I still don't see a clear case made, so I'm moving on. Have a good evening.
If it's also a necessity for life, then honestly, yes?
Also, even when not a necessity, taxes are often just more efficient than the alternative.
Think about taxi licenses before Uber. The government thought there were too many taxis. They made a limited supply of medallions therefore. The government gave them away to existing taxi drivers for free. Eventually they reached $1,000,000.
Eventually there were too few taxis. Existing owners complained about trying to expand the supply because maybe they just took out a loan to buy one. People were even renting out medallions. Something the government handed out for free.
The whole mess could have been avoided if the government just taxed taxis until the quantity matched what they wanted.
In a way, you'd end up in a position similar to just handing out the medallions for free. The differences are the government is getting the money and the rate can be more easily changed.
This is a pretty close metaphor for land value tax. All LVT really does is instead of paying the prior owner or a bank for land, you pay the government in installments.
Not if there are either substitutes or financial incentive to make more. Capitalism is pretty great, it just doesn't work for certain natural resources that have a very finite supply.
We’re all on this world for a little while and then we die and leave behind the detritus of our lives.
For some people that’s a house full of crap that their kids need to clean out after the funeral and for others that’s a dilapidated apartment building that’s soon to be condemned and will require asbestos abatement and demolition.
> The land value tax can’t be dodged by leaving nor can it be passed on to renters.
In what sense can't it be passed to renters? Esp if all landlords in the market were faced with a new land tax that they had not previously planned for, why would it not be passed on?
Rent is a function of supply and demand, not a landlord's costs, otherwise we would expect changes in e.g. mortgage interest costs to be passed on to, but in practice we don't see this effect. We also don't see landlords who own their properties outright (and thus don't have mortgage interest costs) charging lower rents than landlords in the neighborhood with identical properties who have mortgages. When landlords' costs drop, do they drop the rent in response?
Taxes can be passed on when the tax induces a change in supply. Conventional property taxes are partially passed through because the component of the tax that falls on the building. Tax buildings, get less buildings.
Taxes on land do not affect the supply of the land, this implies they are not passed on and the research literature largely agrees with this.
Landlord costs affect supply in the long term, so you will see changes, just not necessarily immediately over a one year period, but definitely over a 5-10 year period.
> We also don't see landlords who own their properties outright (and thus don't have mortgage interest costs) charging lower rents than landlords in the neighborhood with identical properties who have mortgages. When landlords' costs drop, do they drop the rent in response?
If costs are uniform for each landlord (they have to pay for), it limits the amount of money they can invest in new capacity, and you will see the effects over a decade. If one landlord has cost advantage over another, then they will of course probably just take the extra money as extra profit.
> Taxes on land do not affect the supply of the land, this implies they are not passed on and the research literature largely agrees with this.
They provide friction with what can be done with the land, because the cost of owning the land has to be paid. If it is just a land tax, however, you can game it by building as much as possible on it so the landowners who can't build as much as you can subsidize your usage (long term, you either have to build as much as you can on your land, or sell the land to someone who can).
> Landlord costs affect supply in the long term, so you will see changes, just not necessarily immediately over a one year period, but definitely over a 5-10 year period.
In fact - although that logic is usually correct - in the case of a land value tax it isn't useful because landlords do not supply land. Someone is still going to own the land and it is still going to be used for something. There is no incentive to leave it unused. There aren't any less resources in the overall system and resources haven't been diverted from a productive use to an unproductive use (quite the reverse, they're being redirected away from someone who was doing nothing to earn them). That is the theoretical advantage of taxing the land.
If it were anything else (eg, taxing the houses on the land) then the argument would be useful because the tax was on transforming less valuable resources into more valuable and there would be less productive economic activity and losses leading to less supply of something that the economy was signalling a need for.
There might be a reallocation from housing to some other purpose if an LVT is bought in, who knows. But it is a context-dependent change and not possible to reason about as a general outcome. It might be that the economy produces exactly the same amount of housing before and after. Less resources overall will be allocated to landlords, obviously, but not in a fashion that penalises building houses. Maybe that means house prices drop and more people own their houses outright. Maybe there is even more housing because resources move from landlords to housebuilders.
> If it is just a land tax, however, you can game it by building as much as possible...
I've never heard an entirely satisfactory process for valuing the land either. Although to some extent all tax systems have questionable underpinnings and compliance.
> If it is just a land tax, however, you can game it by building as much as possible on it so the landowners who can't build as much as you can subsidize your usage (long term, you either have to build as much as you can on your land, or sell the land to someone who can).
I was on the fence but your advocacy in favor of the land value tax has convinced me. Well played.
> Landlord costs affect supply in the long term, so you will see changes, just not necessarily immediately over a one year period, but definitely over a 5-10 year period.
This is true, but the degree depends on elasticity of supply, and that depends a lot on profitability of the sector.
> Taxes on land do not affect the supply of the land, this implies they are not passed on and the research literature largely agrees with this.
Taxes may not affect the amount of land that physically exists, but they absolutely can and do affect the amount of land available for rent as opposed to other income-generating use cases.
On top of that, a tax that applies equivalently to all of the land available to the rental market in a given area will simply push prices upwards across the board, which is likely to just be absorbed by renters given the usually low price elasticity of demand for housing.
> On top of that, a tax that applies equivalently to all of the land available to the rental market in a given area will simply push prices upwards across the board
Most research asserts that a land value tax decreases the selling price of land.
In a fully functioning spherical chicken market, once balancing in
If I buy land for $100k today, I can assume I'm going to make say $6k a year from renting it to someone and $2k a year from it increasing in value, giving me a 8% roi
If I instead had to pay just $4k a year in LVT, the price would reduce to $50k to keep that 8% roi. I'll still be making money for doing nothing.
Now if that LVT was returned to the population at large, it's quite possible the population has more money to spend on land, so I could increase the rental price from $6k a year, but then the LVT would increase, because the idea is it reduces unimproved land value to zero -- nobody should make money from occupying land, they should make money through improving it.
In reality though any LVT implemented would be full of loopholes which would introduce absurd incentives. Just like taxing income, and worse taxing earned income more than non-earned income.
All property owners can increase rental prices now anyway. They can only increase them to the maximum someone will pay for it. That's why average rental prices tends to track average income. If you have 5 homes and 6 people, each able to pay 2100, 2200... 2600, then the worst home will rent for 2200, and the one who can only afford 2100 will live in a box.
They can only increase rents as much as the next guy. If you're charging $2500 but next door is $2400, then nobody will rent from you. But if everybody's charging $2500, then that's what people will have to pay.
You're right that some people will get squeezed out, but in high demand markets there are enough people willing to pay that it doesn't matter. The number of properties available for rent in California isn't growing as fast as the total population is growing. Property owners will eat the 5% increase for a while - at least until the existing leases expire - but eventually they'll incorporate that 5% increase into the rent.
Why would a land value tax shift the allocation of land between uses? The amount of the tax doesn't depend on what the land's being used for. If renting is the highest-value use without the tax, it will still be the highest-value use with the tax.
These are assertions, not arguments. Respond to points in the post you replied to. Be sure you understand them first; your assertions do not hold in the case of LVT.
In fact, they are indeed arguments derived from applying well-understood economic principles to the specific -- and purely speculative -- claims posited by the preceding comment.
> Be sure you understand them first; your assertions do not hold in the case of LVT.
Indeed I have, and indeed they do. Rather, your own response attempting to dismiss rather than engage with counter-arguments betrays a likely ideological rather than pragmatic interest in the concept of LVT.
> We also don't see landlords who own their properties outright (and thus don't have mortgage interest costs) charging lower rents than landlords in the neighborhood with identical properties who have mortgages.
Why would they as long as they find a renter? The market always charges the marginal cost.
I don't think that logic works because if I'm paying for a loan, I'm not just paying interest, I'm also paying against principal. So in the new, landtax world, I'm building less equity for the same rental cashflow. If I'm thinking of building a unit for rental, I look at all the costs over the next 10-30 years, and all the expected revenue, including eventually owning an asset with some perpetual value. If we have higher taxes in perpetuity then that final asset has lower value and I need to charge more rent to make the same profit in that timespan.
Not to mention that many real estate investors don't use loans, and that the banks giving out loans understand the lack of equity being built and demand higher interest given the inherently lower collateral (greater risk).
You're assuming that the loan repayments of interest plus capital are the same as the land tax. That wouldn't be the case.
Currently the purchase price of the property includes a good deal of future land rent, you just pay the current owner.
If you spend $50k on some land and pay 5% a year you're paying $2500 a year in rent, but you're paying that to the existing owner.
Under an LVT you'd be paying $2500 in rent, but the land itself would cost basically nothing.
Whether it's a loan, or the opportunity cost from not putting the capital elsewhere, doesn't matter.
Land speculators profit from land values increasing, and they do nothing other than gamble. They don't increase the value of their own land, that's what their neighbours do. LVT removes that speculation, and indeed risk. If the area goes downhill (say in Detroit), your taxes lower
The downside of this is if you have taxes funding the government, you end up in a death spiral. That's what the UK has with council tax (which is very regressive, a 10m house in one area can pay less than a 100k flat in another, and even in the same area would only pay about 3 times the price), and I believe it's the case in the US.
That's why I'd rather see a citizens dividend than just cutting taxes.
A transaction can occur if the price is >= the seller's cost, and <= the value to the buyer. If it's at the minimum, the seller must pass on the tax or not trade, at the maximum (down to the max minus the tax) , the seller can't pass on (all of) the tax and still trade. We observe that landlords make profit, so we are not at the minimum. Are we at the maximum?
I think there are cases where we are in between for significant periods of time. Consider a positive shock to wages. Can landlords put up prices overnight? I don't think so, unless the landlords all co-ordinate to do so, prices will be sticky as there are always some properties in the market, so it's difficult to be the first to increase rent. Unlike a purchase, a landlord who waits for a buyer at the right price is forgoing income during the void. So the market price can be a Schelling Point.
A tax increase, however, happens at the same time to all landlords. All of them would prefer to pass it on, and they know that so they can assume all other landlords will try to pass it on. If the rent is currently below the maximum possible, they will succeed.
How long it takes prices to adjust I don't know. It is an empirical question, but I don't know what data would answer it. But it seems like it took decades for landlords to capture the two-income surplus after it became common for women to have a career.
> Do you really believe that landlords will subsidize tenants for a long time?
This literally happens all the time in California.
You buy a house in CA. You move somewhere else. You hold on to the house because your property taxes are fixed and housing prices grow like crazy here. Maybe your kids will want it. Maybe you'll want to move back..
You can't charge enough rent to cover the mortgage and taxes os you end up taking a loss monthly.
> otherwise we would expect changes in e.g. mortgage interest costs to be passed on
These aren't a universal cost. When rates change, some landlords' costs go up. But some don't. That lets the latter set the marginal price.
If everyone's costs go up the same amount, it's collusion without communication. In an inelastic market like San Francisco's, you'd expect prices to rise.
If I own £100K worth of land, and the government announces a 1% annual land tax, it's likely the value of my land will fall by about ~25-33% overnight.
If you think that's morally unobjectionable, fine, but I'd love to know what happens when all the landowners who own rural land that doesn't have a profitable development path attached to it can't pay their tax bills. Have the state seize it all?
Or do they just claim it's of negligible value and avoid the tax?
You would sell the development for as much as you can get, regardless of tax. The people buying from you aren't going to pay you more just because the government raised your taxes.
A land tax would effect every single landlord though. Every single landlord would put up rent.
The market will bare it because people have no choice. The choice is homelessness or paying the higher rent.
It's principally the same when mortgage rates rise. Landlords with mortgages put up rent. Only it would be worse, since not all landlords have mortgages.
Do you have data for this? The data I've seen in the past is that landlords are not in aggregate able to pass on mortgage rate increases as rent increases, possibly because their tenants are already squeezed to the limit and there is simply no more money to be had. So when mortgage rates go up rents stay roughly constant and property values go down.
Although the rules were later somewhat changed. Perhaps after pressure due to terminally ill farmers committing suicide (before the tax came into effect so that they could pass on their inheritance).
> Rent is a function of supply and demand, not a landlord's costs
Only in one direction. If that rent, based on supply and demand, does not cover all of the owner's costs (+profit) then that rental property simply disappears off the market. No owner is going to rent out at a loss, so either the renter is paying for all expenses (+profit), or they get kicked out.
I do acknowledge that rent is a function of supply and demand in the big picture, at least. I don't think the whole foundation of economics is wrong.
Demand for apartments will be constant.
Supply of apartments will be constant.
But I think what's going on here is that we are way off the equilibrium point. The supply of good places to rent is far outpaced by demand for them, at most price points, and especially so where all the value is (on the coast). So, this means if you're a landlord and you know you'll owe another $1200 tax to Sacramento this year, you should be very confident that if you raise rent by $100 a month, even if an individual tenant would rather move than pay it, someone who can afford $100 more exists and will almost certainly fill that vacancy promptly. It may represent a slight step down in what their buying power would buy. Like, they may have rented a $3000 apartment before, and they'll now rent what used to be a $2900 apartment from you for $3000.
Competition is not one thing. For a producer of widgets, competition means that there is immense instantaneous leverage if you can reduce the price, because buyers will switch to you, increasing your market share until your competitor can match - if they can.
A landlord is usually in a different position. If their personal costs drop (eg, they paid off their mortgage) but the market price stays the same, how do they benefit by reducing the price they offer? Only by reducing the time it takes to rent out, which isn't a significant factor in exactly case when tenants would most like rents to go down - when prices are high because of demand.
The details of these mechanisms matter. Market can be out of equilibrium for a long time; maybe indefinitely.
LVT would push up the supply of rental properties by ensuring that property owners who don't rent out their properties or who don't make efficient use of land lose money.
Thats an incentive to rent out the property or sell up to somebody who will.
It would apply harsh market discipline on landlords - a demographic that has usually been rather coddled.
> LVT would push up the supply of rental properties by ensuring that property owners who don't rent out their properties or who don't make efficient use of land lose money.
That doesn't follow. If LVT reduces the net return on rentals, it will disincentivize construction and maintenance of housing in the first place. If it creates a net negative or zero return on property ownership, it may lead to abandoned/undeveloped property instead of housing development, or more property being used for other purposes than housing.
It's also worth pointing out that the existing ad valorem tax system used for property taxes is functionally equivalent to LVT, and does have these influences on the housing market. LVT proposals are distinguished by their being rooted in (fundamentally flawed) Georgist theory, not by being unique as a form of taxation in practice.
A property loses ~30% of its value when rented out and maintenance cost and insurance cost goes up significantly. Plenty of landlords rather have their property be empty and just collect on the equity gains over the years without putting in any effort.
> property owners who don't rent out their properties
The existence of property tax (which on a single house in some areas of the state is upwards of $15,000 a year already) already makes it absolutely ruinous to just sit on an extra house you don't need and not rent it out.
> or who don't make efficient use of land
A little more convincing. Though I suspect most empty land in places where anyone would be willing to live in California, is empty because our insane zoning laws don't allow what would otherwise make sense there (I don't care that it's like what most areas have -- it's insane to have laws that would make it illegal to build a place like San Francisco, Brooklyn, or Boston).
The funny thing about those zoning laws though is that they're held up by a rare case of bipartisanship:
- The MAGA Boomer set who doesn't want any more development near them because "it'll bring traffic" or noise or crime
- And most of the "progressives" who don't want any more development anywhere because "we hate greedy developers" and "Not enough of this proposed development is low-income housing for the government to dole out in lotteries to a few lucky families."
Idk, I’ve seen plenty of houses get torn down and replaced by a $2M house and just sit vacant years until they sell.
15k/2M is 75 basis points. Its definitely profitable to just sit on land especially if you turned it into a parking lot or some other barely improved thing.
Most mortgages are fixed interest. So it makes since that today's rate change doesn't impact a renter cost in the near future. Probably not until the next time the property is sold.
Is there really a market dynamic in rent pricing anymore? I thought that algorithmic collusion had eliminated the need for landlords to compete on price.
> I thought that algorithmic collusion had eliminated the need for landlords to compete on price.
What sustains 'algorithmic collusion' in a non-market-clearing situation when landlords ultimately just want to rent their property out?
To put it another way, why would a property owner who has a vacant house leave it unrented in order to benefit other property owners at his own expense?
> I thought that algorithmic collusion had eliminated the need for landlords to compete on price.
Well, that and non-enforcement of antitrust which is a big part of many of our current economic problems.
Massive corporate landlords like Greystar and Morgan Properties own so much of the market they can do a lot of pricing damage even without colluding with others (but of course they do that too).
There's a somewhat non-conglomerate reason though too:
The government, society, municipalities in the US do not build housing. They allow it to be built. Housing is built by developers, who are businesses that insist on making a profit.
So lets say you are one of the only couple of companies that can build a new 100 unit apartment in an area with tight housing supply. Great, you love money, you will look to invest in a development to capture some of that market and make money.
Do you build 100 cheap units for $X and make 5% profit over your planned ROI term, or do you build 100 absurdly upmarket units for $X + 10% dollars and make 10% profit over the same ROI term?
You already know the answer. The normal response is that "All new build is good and will lower price" but no, the rich people buying McMansions and $3000 per month condos in states they haven't ever been to can just absorb far more supply than actual local workers. And, well, they are so fucking rich compared to the average person that they can simply not care about how many of these properties they own, so there isn't downward pressure on them to sell off some of those locations.
The rich are just too rich and can easily outbid the rest of us forever for anything. They are so rich and their marginal value of a dollar is so low that they can happily buy up expensive housing basically for shits and giggles and sit on it and forget they even have it. They own ten properties they never visit. Because they can literally own a property just because they might some day want to visit.
Developers have mostly decided to only serve that clientele because they are so goddamned profitable, because they will negotiate less, will happily pay for box checking features meant to increase the price (like really really bad smart home implementations that they never even experience because they never go to that home). The rich guy who hired my dad to be his general contractor doesn't care what my dad charges and doesn't look at the bill, so my dad abandoned his plan to build 10 houses and instead just lives a relaxing life off of that man's excess, because why the fuck would you do a hundred times the work for less money?
That's one of the reason income inequality on it's own is so bad. Money doesn't work in a linear way, so having 2X the dollars as the next guy is more than 2X as "powerful". The uber rich can just own everything and you have no hope of outbidding or competing. You simply have no other choice than finding what little scraps they ignore.
Capitalism optimizes for best profit per effort. In a society where a tiny percent own the majority of all resources, why would you ever fight for the scraps the little guys have?
Profitable businesses in Portland are being forcibly evicted to be replaced with brand new hotels meant for Executives to visit once a year, all over the area, because providing any service to the uberwealthy is just that much more profitable than providing very necessary service to the average person. It doesn't matter how desperate normal people get, they can't afford to outbid the uberwealthy.
That cost will, of course, be passed on to renters unless the rental prices cannot be raised at all.
If they can't be raised, and the costs end up being ruinous to the landlords, they will find other solutions like mass arson. That isn't hyperbole; this was a serious problem in the 1970s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_South_Bronx_building_fir...
That was obviously not acceptable... but it was predictable.
All legal proposals should be viewed like a chess move. Presume others will respond, and make sure you're ok with that response. In a sense that's also the point of the original article too, a law was passed without adequqtely thinking through what would happen.
I actually think there's a lot of positives in land value taxes. However, I was objecting to the phrase "The land value tax can’t be dodged by leaving nor can it be passed on to renters" because that is missing key issues.
Land's assessed value is based on what you could do with it. If can be rented at a profit, that's something you can do with it, and its potential matters. If it can't, then that is no longer a potential value of it.
That doesn't make lvt a bad idea, it's just that I think there's not enough acknowledgement of the trade-offs and limitations.
Burning down an apartment building doesn't change what could be done with the lot; an appropriate valuation method for LVT would not give a different valuation for the land depending on what is built on it.
> Burning down an apartment building doesn't change what could be done with the lot; an appropriate valuation method for LVT would not give a different valuation for the land depending on what is built on it.
True, but an LVT is a cost. Changes in cost can change what is financially viable to do with a property, regardless of what is currently done with the lot, and thus can impact the land value.
Actually no, land value tax is not a marginal cost so does not change the profit maximizing use of land.
The idea of cost-plus pricing is folk economics.
Tax incidence is very well understood in economics and has to do with relative supply and demand elasticity (supply of land is perfectly inelastic) and marginal costs which land value tax does not touch.
It's accurate to say LVT changes the price of land. But it doesn't change the profit maximizing productive use of land.
Other taxes that scale with production (sales tax, income tax, property tax) do change profit maximizing productive use.
>If they can't be raised, and the costs end up being ruinous to the landlords, they will find other solutions like mass arson
Landlords who have their entitlements to land rents or other natural resource rents they've captured ripped away from them would almost assuredly endorse the use of violence.
Land redistribution (of which this is a form) from the landed rentiers to the landless has historically resulted in brutal violence in order to protect their privileged claim on non-human created wealth.
It is quite disingenuous to attribute the South Bronx fires as a result of landlords unable to raise rental prices. I mean that is technically true, but your comment makes it sound like it was a result of a particular legal proposal. It was not. It was a period of urban decay in NYC and many cities in the United States. It was the continuation of white flight into suburbs that started in earlier decades. It was a large demographic change with complex causes.
Rents are already as high as renters can bear. If a tax is introduced, you'd expect landlord competition to drive down the landlord margins, not increase rents.
The supply of land is inelastic. Property developers can't get more land by building more houses on it (and as a corollary, the eventual owner also do not get charged more in taxes).
I don't think this is why it won't get passed on. In theory the lowest income could leave the state and higher income renters would come in.
But in reality a land value tax incentivizes higher density housing. A single house and an apartment complex pay the exact same amount of tax, while the apartment building can split it up over many occupants. Land value taxes are a very natural hands off way of encouraging the right use of land, empty lots and car parks become unaffordable in highly desirable areas while apartments become relatively very cheap.
In theory the land value tax could be set so the overall taxation is the same as before, but but the distribution is such that the people with massive blocks of land in highly desirable areas foot most of the bill. This would over time make housing cheaper over time as more housing is built to reduce the tax burden.
> a land value tax incentivizes higher density housing. A single house and an apartment complex pay the exact same amount of tax, while the apartment building can split it up over many occupants.
That would only be true if the LVT replaced the existing property tax structure, which is not what TFA is calling for.
the rent is already priced to the maximum of purchasing power of the local renters ability.
if landlords were able to raise rent, they would have done that already as its pure profit for them. The fact that they can't, means they will have to eat any marginal tax imposed on them
The author makes the comment about the land value tax not being able to be passed on to renters in the context of comparing it to a property tax.
If I’m understanding the argument you’re making here correctly, wouldn’t what you’re saying be equally true for a property tax?
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I don’t think the author would agree with your point since I don’t see how your argument could be true for a land tax, but not for a property tax.
Yeah. I understand the point you’re making, but what I’m saying is that I don’t think that aligns with the authors position.
The author seems to say that costs can be passed on to the renters when the costs are a property tax, but they cannot be passed on when it’s a land tax. That seems like a really odd position to take and it doesn't align with your "costs are irrelevant" statement. I fully admit that I could be missing something, but I don’t understand how it can be true that only certain types of taxes can be passed on to renters.
I fully understand the argument you’re making and I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing with it. It sounds logical, but I frankly don’t know enough about this topic really process it. What I’m saying is that regardless of whether you’re right or wrong, I don’t think your argument is the same one the author is making unless I’m missing something in your argument about why that only applies to land taxes and not property taxes.
some tenants who are on the margin of profitability will decide to close shop/relocate to Texas, which will free up rental space and drive down the prices
Landlords are competing with each other, and renters can take their next best alternative. If everything gets strictly more expensive, the next best alternative is not necessarily any cheaper...
if everyone raises rents by a certain percentage trying to recoup taxes, this will be equivalent of Supply line shifting up by the amount of tax in Economics 101 terms.
From economics we know that increase in cost is split between Landlords/Renters in accordance to their elasticities. Whoever is more elastic - will eat the tax.
the cost increase is shared between renters/landlords in the ratio of their elasticities. Whoever is more inelastic, will eat the cost.
Inealstic renters will pay up increased rent (like techbros in SF are eating up all rent increases).
Elastic renters will get up and move to Texas, if renter swill hike rent.
Elastic landlords will lever down and decrease number of low margin properties like rent-controlled properties, or unprofitable properties.
Inelastic landlords will eat the taxes and take a hit to profitability.
The author probably has a very superficial understanding of economics. It's economics 101, like VAT, the cost will be passed to BOTH the renter and the landlord. The portion of each is dependent on market dynamics and hard to calculate.
>In the instance of perfect elasticity of the demand or perfect inelasticity of the supply, the price will remain the same and the entire tax burden is on producers. An example of perfect inelastic supply curve is unimproved land (the supply of improved land is elastic because more or less could be created by investment in improvements) or crude oil. Thus, the whole tax burden is on landowners and owners of the oil.
if there are apartments on the margin of profitability, the cash outlay of LVT will have impact in either landlords quitting the market or deferring/stopping maintenance and such
This is the problem with governments who think they can synthesize value. They think all businesses can too.
If these communists succeed, they will use the very fact that a landlord cannot synthesize money to prove the landlord passed the cost to the tenant and seize the land.
LVT is incoherent, it pretty much only benefits people who are cash rich and land poor. Which is why it gets so much oxygen from tech elites with lots of cash and an inability to buy a house somewhere like mill valley, or wherever.
Essentially taken to the logical conclusion, there will be people competing for more cash to pay their increasing taxes on the same land, it doesn't fundamentally solve the problem. It's such a joke.
I do understand how it works, are you saying that the zoning will magically be fixed when the taxes go up or the land becomes more exlusive? because I can tell you which one has precedent and which one is wishful thinking.
Yes, zoning does get magically fixed, because the incentives that led to zoning disappear. Under full LVT, owners have an incentive to maximize their land use. Otherwise, they will go bankrupt. So places with zoning more restrictive than land use demands will be underwater financially. Think SFH tract homes in Cupertino. These homeowners have fought viciously to retain SFH zoning. If LVT was imposed 95% of them would be faced with a tax bill they cannot pay. Their only option would be to surrender their land or rezone to allow development of sufficient scale to pay the tax.
It’s not wishful thinking it’s just a fact. Zoning exists because landowners want it. As soon as they don’t want it, it’s gone.
"utilized better" in that context just means that the owner of the land can support the taxes on it, it doesn't mean suddenly we are going to put skyscrapers in el cerrito.
No, you won't have a skyscrapers in some random village in the middle of nowhere. But maybe the land owner, seeing how high is the LVT tax is, decides to build a 5-stories apartment building with 50 units, instead of 5 single family homes. And that's a win.
Wealth taxes are a symptom of a broken tax system. If you let someone get to hundreds of billions in net worth and then realize they haven’t been appropriately paying back into the system, it’s already too late. Like the article says they can simply say “no” in a variety of ways, from fighting in court to simply leaving.
> If you let someone get to hundreds of billions in net worth and then realize they haven’t been appropriately paying back into the system
This is to once again mistake net worth for money. Net worth is not real. It is not a good measure of the money someone may be able to realise. They do not have hundreds of billions. There is nothing to tax until they sell some shares.
It's strange that people always make this argument for wealth taxes, but you rarely hear it about property taxes. If "net worth is not real" neither is equity in real estate.
People absolutely make that argument about property taxes. That's where deferrals or abatements for e.g. elderly or low-income homeowners, or caps on property tax increases come from. Someone may own a home that property taxes price them out of, forcing them to leave their community because they can't actually conjure money from a higher priced home.
I think a lot of tax authorities also don't really aggressively reassess that regularly without a sale, so it also kind of ends up baked in that if you didn't pay that much for the property, it's only theoretically worth that much.
This is all conceding the argument already. Many of us would happily accept these sorts of limitations on a wealth tax if it means there is a wealth tax.
The only reason it works with real estate is because they can put a lien on the house and block the sale of it. They don't have any useful mechanism to stop the sale of a share of stock, but since the government is involved in the transfer (due to the registering of the new house deed) of a house, they can stop that one.
> They don't have any useful mechanism to stop the sale of a share of stock
The SEC exists. As do many other mechanisms by which the government regulates direct and brokered securities trades and sales. You can make the case that some of those controls are poorly/ineffectively implemented, but you can’t claim that it’s not something the government routinely regulates, intervenes in, and sometimes prohibits outright.
Society has deemed it "ok" for a real estate transaction to take days or weeks to process and mountains of paperwork, probably because it is done so rarely in an average person's life. But stock trades are expected to be done quickly in minutes or even milliseconds with high frequency trading. It just isn't feasible to inject government paperwork in the middle of a transaction. Wall Street would revolt if they even tried.
The main reason real estate taxes work so well is that tax evasion is very difficult.
Because the building is standing right where it is, in the open, lit by the sun every day. If you don't pay your tax, the government can just take it.
This compensates for the several philosophical and moral problems with it, and I've seen several economists declare it the best form of taxation there is.
Why can't govt block the sale of stocks? It's not like you would be selling non digitalized assets, govts often freeze and reverse stock sales/trades when they find it to be illegal already.
It's harder for private companies sure, but who will stand in the way of govts if they said we will sanction your if you buy X or Y company?
It's the opposite. You've been drip-fed "billionaires cause all the problems" for a few years, and now, as you say, you feel all sorts of things about them, which can rationalise all sorts of bad ideas.
Wealth inequality is worse than any other time in human history. What the wealthy and powerful are funding is division, fascism, the far-right and immigrant hate, so that they don't have to pay more taxes. It's the same divide and rule playbook since forever.
I disagree with you on what is being drip-fed. It's factual that deranged levels of wealth inequality are causing problems, even the billionaire wannabes on HN are starting to see that.
> Wealth inequality is worse than any other time in human history
And humans are wealthier than any time in history. They have access to robot slaves that can wash dishes and clothes for them. They can access fruits grown over 1000 miles away for 69c. They have potions that can cure cancer. They have the database of all human intelligence in their pocket, accessible from anywhere on the globe. They have individualized transportation that can travel over 2 miles a minute. They have super intelligent thinking machines for cents.
A big proportion of Americans are struggling to make ends meet on a fulltime wage. No amount of luxuries make up for a lack of necessities. Your argument might have had a smidge of credibility 15 years ago.
That's just the consequence of various other policies that a lot of them probably voted for (or didn't vote against hard enough). If you transform a country a certain way, promising more and more from the government for some people, then everyone else has to pay more. If you pay for it with ZIRP, then you're going to need to pay it back.
The last thing you should do at that point is vote for more policies that will destroy economic activity in the name of "fairness". That's how you got here.
> Wealth inequality is worse than any other time in human history
This is circular. Wealth inequality:
1. Isn't real. It's a paper value that would not survive contact with reality.
2. Doesn't matter. What matters is the absolute level of poverty and whether that's getting better. Someone in poverty in the UK today will still get healthcare, eyecare and dental care beyond the dreams of Henry VIII.
3. Is genuinely a stupid measure. You could "fix" it by burning everyone's possessions until everyone has the same: nothing. Zero inequality, and yet somehow doesn't sound great.
> What the wealthy and powerful are funding is division, fascism, the far-right and immigrant hate, so that they don't have to pay more taxes. It's the same divide and rule playbook since forever.
Absolutely real when Musk can tilt elections in America and fund far right parties in other countries. Your whole “paper wealth” argument holds no weight.
He didn't have to tilt anything in America. The Democrats ran the worst platform in living memory for the 2024 election, and the sooner they stop blaming billionaires for everything and start looking at themselves to improve the sooner they will get back the popular vote.
So did many other people. Any popular podcast will do that. Any media organisation has editorial bias, either in story presentation or even in selection. I don't see why Elon Musk would be singled out there, other than he's an ex-Democrat, and thus like all the ex-Democrats is a target of constant negative mentioning in a lot of one side's media.
It's interesting to see the level of discourse change across time as these same points are brought up again and again.
It seems there are many many more people heavily invested in preventing land tax all of a sudden and are very informed whereas when that guy made a land tax visualizer a few months ago... crickets.
Narrative control and algorithm driven propaganda is evident - Most people scrolling any kind of algorithmic feed would be shocked at the intimate detail the algorithm knows their mind, proclivities, aversions.
Another evident thing is that people will start retreating from the internet as this gets worse (With LLMs accelerating the trend).
If I sell my house, there's a reasonable expected range of money I can expect for it.
If a majority stock holder in a company sells all of their stock, the price first the first share sold is likely going to be completely different (and substantially less!) than the last share sold.
"It's difficult to accurately value" isn't an argument against taxing net worth. It's like the old (likely apocryphal) Winston Churchill joke, "We already established what type of woman you are, now we are just haggling over price". Just take whatever the proposal is, cut in half, quarter, or whatever fraction you want and you no longer have an argument against it.
Personally my favorite idea for this stuff that I have heard thrown around is to allow people to self value everything. However, that self valuation then becomes a price tag. Let a billionaire's accountants put their own evaluation on their equity in a business. But that becomes a binding offer and some other billionaire could come along and buy them out at that valuation. That creates pricing pressure in both directions, the person is prevented from underpricing their assets due to the threat of another buyer coming in and a person is prevented from overpricing because it increases their taxes. And suddenly all the problems regarding how the government appraises these things disappears.
Forcing people to write a call option on their property without an offsetting risk premium only sounds like a good idea if you neither understand the implications nor the math. Asset values would collapse because risk would go to the moon.
And that ignores that it trivially enables large-scale exploitation and looting by construction.
The market determines the risk, not the asset owner. The owner has no special knowledge of what the risk actually is separate from the market pricing it. You explicitly want them to accurately price it outside of a market, which is effectively impossible, ignoring that the price is highly fluid and dynamic.
If the owner is required to invent a fake risk premium then it virtually guarantees that the risk will be mis-priced. Forced rampant mis-pricing is an exploitable arbitrage opportunity of epic proportions. Every quant worth a damn will make a fortune looting this. No serious policy can ignore this defect. It has the additional political downside that no one can ever own anything anymore in a meaningful way, which won’t be popular.
No one takes this idea seriously because anyone with a modicum of finance math background can see that the math doesn’t math. Political ideology doesn’t even figure into it.
I'm getting the impression you didn't get my "haggling over price" reference. This conversation is in the context of a wealth tax which typically only applies to a very select group of incredibly wealthy people. However, your complaints are all about the scale of the economic problems this would create. That means we can continue to add restrictions to this proposal until eventually all the issues you raised disappear.
For example, imagine we only apply this to people with a net worth over $500B. That's literally only Elon Musk. He has plenty of money to hire his own team of quants to price his assets. We can even be generous with this law and make the purchase price double the valuation. Hell, we can even restrict it to only apply to stock of publicly traded companies so the wealth valuations are highly informed by market pricing. We can just keep adding rules like this until you're out of economic reasons for why a wealth tax and/or this form of valuation can't work. At that point the debate is lost and "we're just haggling over price" because once we apply it to Musk, how can you argue against applying it to Bezos...
Society has already decided that we can compel people to sell their private property for fair compensation via eminent domain. Plus getting the assets in the hands of people who value them more certainly creates utility and presumably increases the tax base via further development.
This type of forced sale happens all the time with public companies. For example, only like 60% of Twitter shareholders approved the sale to Musk, but the other 40% were forced to go along with it regardless of their preference. If Musk can do that to other people, why should some hypothetically richer person not be able to do it to Musk?
And to repeat myself for a third time, we don't need to haggle over price. If we only want this to apply to billionaires, assets worth $50 million, or whatever, that's fine. If one of the people impacted truly doesn't want to sell, let them set the price as high as makes them feel safe. I'm not going to lose any sleep over taxing the emotional desires of billionaires.
> For example, only like 60% of Twitter shareholders approved the sale to Musk, but the other 40% were forced to go along with it regardless of their preference
They signed up to that, though. Tagalonpg/dragalong rights are priced into the share price. That's not the same thing.
I always enjoy when someone takes a quote out of context to refute something I said when the context it was said in completely answers them. Like why didn't you include the sentence before that bit you quoted? Is it because me saying "this type of sale" shows that I was saying they are similar rather than identical? Or why didn't you include my first paragraph? Is it because eminent domain is also priced into everything a billionaire owns?
> It's strange that people always make this argument for wealth taxes, but you rarely hear it about property taxes.
I don't like property taxes either, and at minimum would rather they were called something else, and preferably replaced with per-service charges where possible.
But either way they exist to pay for things, and not to just degrade the value of your property simply because you worked to own it.
The actual mistake is pretending like they can't leverage those shares to access fiat, for example securities-backed loans. The proceeds aren't taxable income, the bank gets its interest, and the latter is typically substantially cheaper than realizing the shares and paying capital gains tax. Meanwhile, they keep the assets, which on average continue appreciating.
Which currently require interest payments of ~6-8% APR. Meaning that you need to be able to invest that money that is being borrowed back into the economy to hopefully get a return more than that. And if your investment fails you will have to realize a different investment. The interest being paid doesn't get hoarded either and is used to make other investments, pay employees, build products, etc.
The idea that a bunch of people are just hoarding their money and not reinvesting it back into the system is flawed. Taxes actually have the opposite effect to contributing to the system. Taxes are like if someone was to come and start hoarding money under their mattress for himself and not contribute back to society.
It's funny that their case study ignores how much wealth you lose from the interest on the loans. If you pay $140k of interest you can avoid $62k of taxes.
I don't know what point you were trying to get across with your link, so I gave my general thoughts on the article.
> There is nothing to tax until they sell some shares.
That's tautological. I mean, it's true under current federal tax law. It's obviously not true under new California law, which is what the article is about.
Clearly the government can tax non-cash assets, and they do all the time. People act like "wealth taxes" are some moral horror or logical impossibility, while tossing their mortgage statement into a big file and pretending to ignore the property tax line on the escrow account.
Are there practical problems like "wealth has feet"? Sure. Taxation is hard and all systems can be gamed. But let's not pretend that there's a greater principle at work here.
Did you have to liquidate your house to pay the property tax on it?
Edit to point out a subtlety: this is an argument at cross purposes. If the economic impact of all this personal wealth growth is so high that liquidating it would move whole markets, then very clearly it represents significant missed tax revenue.
They play a clever little game where they borrow against those shares to live on. Since there’s no realized gain, there’s no income (and the interest is deductible against any incidental gains that might happen along the line). Then when they die, the sale of shares to pay off the loan is a non-taxable event and the estate value is reduced so the heirs won’t pay as much (or any) estate tax.
> They play a clever little game where they borrow against those shares to live on
Yes, everyone in the US can play the same clever little game by taking out a loan against a property and deducting the interest against their income.
> and the estate value is reduced so the heirs won’t pay as much (or any) estate tax
This is just madness. The estate value is reduced so their heirs won't get as much. You still pay inheritance tax on what you get. Anyone can avoid inheritance tax by just not passing anything on.
That’s just a decision we made about what is taxable.
Purely an accounting artifact. We can pass a wealth tax tomorrow and it’ll suddenly be taxable.
Net worth is real money, and is usually a very accurate measure of what people can realize. There are a few outliers who own so much that they’d move the market if they sold it all. Selling 2% to cover taxes? Not going to move the market very much.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution would like a word (assuming you’re contemplating a federal wealth tax; states could do it, at the risk expressed in the headline of the article we’re discussing).
That is what makes the timeline GGP laid out impossible:
> We can pass a wealth tax tomorrow and it’ll suddenly be taxable.
Unless we don’t share a common definition of “tomorrow” or “suddenly”. (For reference, the 16th Amendment process took about 3 years and 7½ months from Senator Norris Brown’s initial formal proposal to ratification by the then-necessary 36th state. [You would need 38 states today.])
Maybe. If my complaint was "tomorrow is Saturday, you can't pass it on a Saturday, duh...", then yeah, I'd absolutely be reading "tomorrow" and "suddenly" too literally.
When you meant "shortly before Memorial Day of 2030", it's not clear that 51% of the misunderstanding is on the reader.
Another thing with taxing unrealized gains is that no one in the government is willing to return any money if the unrealized losses happened. Somehow it's all hunky-dory when someone loses 1M in stock value, but as soon as someone's stock went up 1M they all want to tax it right away.
Try this - go to a bank and say “I’d like to borrow money using my 401k/Roth IRA as collateral. If I fall behind in payments you can liquidate the entire thing, including penalties, and make yourself whole.”
You’d think they’d jump over each other to lend money against such a stable, secure asset right?
Except they’ll say “sorry, this isn’t allowed. IRS treats borrowing against an untaxed retirement account as an early withdrawal, even if the asset itself stays untouched.”
Turns out the government fully understands the concepts of stocks, gains, unrealized net worth and more, and has laws on the books to make sure you are being taxed appropriately for them.
Meanwhile billionaires have convinced you – through their machinery of media, influencers, politicians and more – that this exact same reasoning absolutely cannot be applied to their own wealth. Because it’s “paper money”. It doesn’t exist. There’s nothing to tax. Just cannot be done, or it’ll bend the laws of spacetime.
Your 401k/Roth IRA (subtracting early withdrawal penalty) amortized over the loan period literally do count when considering qualifying income for a conventional mortgage. This is not a taxable event. You do not actually have to make distributions. It's just standard procedure that it counts when determining whether you can pay the loan.
> Meanwhile billionaires have convinced you – through their machinery of media, influencers, politicians and more – that this exact same reasoning absolutely cannot be applied to their own wealth.
Quite the opposite: Socialist politicans and their media lapdogs have dishonestly convinced you that wealthy people are escaping taxes en-masse by taking out loans and that this can only be stopped by eye watering wealth taxes. They frequently use a motte and bailey confusing unrealized gains (which certainly exist in huge amounts but are also significantly fiction) with tax escape via loans collateralized by securities.
But it's not true: were there meaningful tax escape that way it could be addressed by establishing rules with conditions where taking a loan against securities can be treated as realizing gains (and adjusting cost basis accordingly). Doing so would be minimally disruptive and distorting and have relatively little legal complication (at least compared to wealth taxes!).
But the reality is that the claimed tax escape isn't happening (at least not at any significant scale) particularly in the current interest rate environment, so a reasonable policy change to address it would be a no-op.
... and to grow and maintain their political standing they specifically need to push a NON-SOLUTION because they can't campaign on something that was simply done and solved, and to retain your (highly monetizable) attention they need to rile you up against an Enemy, and certainly never address the state's addiction to wasteful spending and buying votes with tax dollars as one half of the revenue vs expenses equation.
I can't tell if you're accusing the state of waste and bribes no matter who is at the helm. You did specifically call out socialists, but the anti-socialists aren't improving that situation either.
> buying votes with tax dollars
This was more convincing of an attack on "Socialist politicians" before Sept. 9, when Trump did it more openly than they ever have. I guess you could believe his claims it won't come from tax dollars. But if the government has $1 trillion lying around for this and chooses not to unconditionally lower taxes for everybody, is it any different?
The head of the anti-socialist, anti-wasteful-spending party is spending billions on a more impressive Air Force One, golf days, family vacations, vanity renovations, DHS ads starring a POTUS wannabe, DOGE effectively paying people not to work, etc.
Everyone is guilty of it, just generally in their own form-- partisan nonsense is largely a distraction to get people mad at the other team and not notice their allies also picking your pocket. Though sure there are some particular ways different parties divide us and pilfer, bad in their own way.
wealth taxes solve the problem that the ultra-wealthy will find a way to make their income untaxable, and focusing on these loans is a red herring. its how theyre doing it now, but not how theyll do it an hour after you add this tax. That the ultra-wealthy propose this as the solution means theyve already planned the next work around.
they dislike wealth taxes, which are an old roman concept predating socialism, because the wealth tax covers all the work arounds they can think of.
it is a proper solution to the overall problem which is extreme wealth concentration.
the obvious alternative is nationalization of all assets worth more than 100M.
DOGE has pretty conclusively proved that the government has been incredibly efficient with spending and doesnt have an addiction to wasteful spending. instead the problem is wasteful monopolization and wealth concentration. society writ large has an addiction to giving a small cadre too much power and control, and they arent the government
Incredibly terrible example because you are allowed to borrow money against a 401k, up to $50000 with no penalties as long as you pay yourself back at whatever schedule you have determined for yourself
No but he’s also not borrowing against his 401k? You and I can also go and borrow against stocks held in regular accounts? https://us.etrade.com/bank/line-of-credit
You are ignoring the most common approach, borrow against the asset. In that case the sufficient assets turn into essentially unlimited untaxed cashflow. Especially with how the market has been lately, the gains erase any burden of the loan. Sounds like a broken tax system to me.
That may be a perfectly viable solution. Seems like an easier path to me, at least. But the point is that these assets are a lot more fungible than you imply.
> It is not a good measure of the money someone may be able to realise.
And as such, when you get into the higher ranges, net worth is quite a good indicator.
I think it’s exactly at the higher ranges that you are more likely to run into concentrated positions where valuations are not simply a total value multiplied by a percentage ownership.
What is Cargill “worth”? Suppose the families announced they were selling 90% of it on Monday. Would they get that figure?
What is Jensen Huang’s share of nVidia worth? If he announced he was selling all of in October, why would he not end up with that figure?
It’s quite different for a bank to lend Jensen (or Larry Ellison or Elon) 5% of that notional figure. They don’t need to care whether the true value is 30% or 50% of the notional to make that loan.
In theory, maybe, but in practice that is not what happened over the past decade(s). Instead our retirement funds are paying it back.
When the market grows it makes the collateral worth more, which lets the borrower keep refinancing the debt instead of selling assets and realizing taxable gains. As long as the assets appreciate faster than the debt grows, the borrowing can effectively roll forward for decades. Eventually the estate pays the debt out of the assets themselves, but this is not necessarily out of taxable income earned during the person's lifetime. The US markets has seen exceptional genuine growth, but the trillions of 401(k), IRA, etc money flowing in to them over the last 40 years is no small consideration.
And even so, you could say it all settles out in the end, but that ignores the fact that there have constant constant efforts (and successes) in eroding away the e̶s̶t̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶t̶a̶x̶ "death tax" during this same period.
However, the bank is happy to extend the loan infinitely for people with enough assets. It's questionable that whether such loans are cash flow neutral.
>However, the bank is happy to extend the loan infinitely for people with enough assets.
Long maturity products still have to be repaid. There are no "infinite" maturity loan products for retail customers.
>It's questionable that whether such loans are cash flow neutral.
There's zero question: loans are cash flow negative (for customers) with interest. Banks are not going to offer products that are not cash flow positive for the bank.
What evidence do you have that people borrow against assets as some tax avoidance strategy? What are the details of this brilliant, often repeated plan? In particular, where do you get interest rates that are low enough to make it worth it to avoid capital gains even with an asset that's grown 100x over its cost basis (and are you accounting for reinvestment of income like dividends that can't indefinitely defer taxes, creating regular tax lots with higher basis that you could sell first)? e.g. are they getting better interest than SOFR somewhere?
The framing was slightly glib, and you're correct that current rates impacts the equation, but there has been real damage caused by how extremely attractive this strategy has been over the past decade. We sitting on an unprecedented peace time deficit due to a failure to properly tax an economy that has been massively prosperous during this same period. This strategy is small part of it, but it is a real part.
It wasn't extremely attractive if you actually think it through. e.g. if rates are lower and you're willing to carry investments with leverage (that's the idea, right? Your investments will grow faster than interest?), why aren't you already leveraged up to your risk tolerance? I don't think there's actually a world where this plan works. It seems like this is a reddit meme for people who have never actually considered a securities loan.
Well then why are people able to borrow against it and then also deduct taxes on the interest on that borrowed amount?
Also I pay property taxes. Somehow the worth of the property goes up every year and gets gets taxed accordingly. Then why can’t wealth get the same treatment?
> Well then why are people able to borrow against it and then also deduct taxes on the interest on that borrowed amount?
I doubt they can borrow against the full amount of it, because that changes. They'll be borrowing against a much smaller value, so the lender has a safety margin. Same as if you have a mortgage you pay less interest the less you borrow vs the value of your house, except I imagine it will be far more conservative.
> Also I pay property taxes. Somehow the worth of the property goes up every year and gets gets taxed accordingly. Then why can’t wealth get the same treatment?
Well, three things.
Firstly, as an aside, it's incredible that you would want this. That is a bad system. You should get taxed according to the services you consume, along with a flat rate for common services, rather than punished with taxes for daring to spend money on improving your house.
Secondly, "wealth" is far less tangible than property prices. Property prices are very well understood. A share price can fluctuate wildly, and saying "well your net worth for today is the number of shares you have times the last share sale price" is just a terrible measure.
Thirdly, what will those shares be worth to sell when they are taxed? Investing is a gamble. Housing is different: we need housing to live, and we want a nice house. No one wants shares. They want a return, and for it they'll stump up a giant amount of money, that will fund many jobs for years, and generate lots of taxes, and who will want to do that when their share will be eroded year on year? There's no benefit to shares except the return. Decreasing the return will have a direct impact on innovation and jobs.
Yeah, it's all illiquid illusory non-wealth when they have to pay taxes, but when they want to buy a newspaper or social network they suddenly have 40 billion in hand.
Forced liquidation hurts more than the sticker price, but with billionaire taxes, that's a feature, not a bug. They make the most sense as a check on concentrated power rather than a revenue driver.
> Yeah, it's all illiquid illusory non-wealth when they have to pay taxes, but when they want to buy a newspaper or social network they suddenly have 40 billion in hand.
Yes, businesses are allowed to buy and sell things without being taxed on the sales. If you want to change that rule, you are going to change a giant number of things purely to get at the billionaires you've spent the last few years being trained to hate.
> Forced liquidation hurts more than the sticker price, but with billionaire taxes, that's a feature, not a bug. They make the most sense as a check on concentrated power rather than a revenue driver.
It's missing the planetwide jungle for the trees if you think giving politicians the ability to reach into ownership percentages of businesses and deciding how much they want to charge you for owning a business is a check on power.
Why? What are they going to do with the money instead? If you charge, say, 5% on unrealised gains, possibly discountable against CGT on sale, say, then do you think rich people are really going to go "well, now I'm only getting 9.5% return instead of 10% return, so I'm going to sell all my shares and build a Scrooge McDuck style swimming pool full of money, instead"?
There are cases where taxes can hurt investment, but you're really talking about quite high rates. For instance, the US peak rate of income tax used to be 94%. That almost certainly _did_ hurt investment.
that net worth is still power, which is even more valuable than money.
if you are claiming the high net worth, almost certainly you have raised significant actual money on things you own. a wealth tax means that if you dont actually think your business is worth a billion, you cant raise money as if it was.
thays a net good thing.
if peter theil is lying about being rich and he only has a couple hundred thousand bucks to his name, the publiv overall deserves to know, and it should cost him quite a lot to raise or borrow money.
these people are commiting fraud and should be forced into texas prisons without AC because theyre lying to banks about the value of their assets, and the bankers too beed to go to those same prisons because theyre defrauding their depositors.
this is only a good thing for routing how whos lying about their worth
> There is nothing to tax until they sell some shares.
Why can't they pay tax in shares?* If net worth isn't real it shouldn't really matter...right?
*Please no pedantry about how the IRS doesn't currently accept shares as payment for taxes. If laws can be written to add wealth taxes on stocks and bonds, they can easily have a clause to allow payment in kind. Address the question I'm actually asking.
You can do it today. Start a company, issue ten billion and one shares to yourself and convince someone to buy one of them for a dollar. Now enjoy your net worth-based tax bill.
That the estimates vary a bit on the edges doesn't mean they've no value. It was public knowledge when his net worth confirmably hit a trillion dollars in share holdings.
If your point is "we can't tax people because estimates aren't perfect", sure. But it's a silly point. We already tax people off estimates - if you own a house, your property taxes are assessed in exactly this fashion - an estimate of its value.
> It was "public knowledge" when his estimated net worth hit a trillion.
No. It was public knowledge when his known numbers of shares in his publicly traded companies reached a known price point.
There is no way to take anything like that. Net worth is quite similar with me saying you are worth 1 billion dollars, but you have zero money in the bank. What do you take, super-rich billionaire person?
The net worth is simply the sum of assets minus the sum of liabilities. Take away the assets and you take away the net worth. I can't think of an asset category that you can't transfer if you are willing to sacrifice its value (which presumably doesn't matter, because it's not real anyways)
In the rare cases where contract law makes the transfer impossible legally the government could trivially step in to make it possible
Why not? Net worth is the estimated sell value of a list of assets. It is entirely possible to take those assets, or charge a tax based on that estimated sell value. Why would it even be a little difficult, let alone impossible?
And certainly ceejayoz was being a bit glib by suggesting we take all of it, but it would not be remotely insurmountable to tax billionaire wealth.
Net worth is the estimated value, not sell value. For example, Tesla shares owned by Elon don't have the same value if Elon is leaving, they are less worthy.
Because that would involve seizing assets? The parent meant it's not "real" in the simple-minded sense that people think it is: the average person imagines Elon Musk and other billionaires have a checking account that keeps increasing by tens of thousands of dollars per second because that's the only frame of reference they have. The reality is the wealth is mostly tied up in assets that ain't exactly liquid. Yes yes, they apparently have access to this supposed infinite money glitch where banks will endlessly loan them money without requiring interest payments (which would require liquidating assets for payment and therefore triggering a taxable event, the very thing people think never happens for billionaires). But the fact of the matter is the wealth isn't money in a bank, and therefore not "real" in the sense the parent was referring to. But it is at the same time something they would miss if it was just "taken away", much the same way you'd miss the numbers in your 401k if voters decided you had a few too many millions saved up for retirement.
the government seizes dollars in the form of taxes, which are still assets, no?
these other assets like musk's stocks are still quite divisible, and theyre as liquid as the government wants them to be. just because musk hasnt written the liquidity into his government sponsored contracts doesnt mean the government cant say yes, 10% of your private spaceX stock is liquid and belongs to donald trump now
Assets are real, but not the valuation of them. This sort of basic error, which seems to only appear on the "tax net worth" side, is good evidence that this is not a reasoned position, and thus you will not be reasoned out of it.
A painting can be valued. A vintage car can be valued. A movie script can be valued. My house's value changed a bunch during COVID; I'm still taxed on it! Each is an asset; none of these examples can be perfectly valuated; each may see its value change dramatically over time, but you can still estimate its worth pretty well.
Hell, I can put my house address on Zillow and get an estimate in real time.
I dont know why it's so complicated to just say "Money is Money when it's Liquid, tax it then". Any loans on wealth should be taxed..nationwide.
But even in California's case this doesn't feel like anything anybody would object to. Given how much California Billionaires liquidate using loans on their wealth, I bet, they could do a middle class tax cut too to offset it a little bit too.
I am little baffled as to why the politicos haven't latched on to this whole-heartedly. You can still proudly say you're taxing Billionaire wealth. Because you are! Just more sensibly.
You will find that the centi-billionaires will find a different way to turn their illiquid wealth into personal power and value in a way that avoids that tax.
Well one thing is, they'd sell shares to pay the taxes. Then dilute their own ownership of the thing (Tesla, Amazon) and it would serve as another form of wealth distribution.
Charitably speaking: I suspect the commenter above you was indicating that the government should have a stock portfolio you can transfer stocks to to pay taxes in a non-taxable event type scenerio.
If you're taxing wealth (and not income) then switching stocks into cash doesn't change the wealth. Then use the cash to pay the taxes which reduces the wealth.
I believe the argument was that for some people, switching stocks into cash actually do change the wealth, because they own such a large % they are meaningfully moving the market by selling (the "paper money" argument).
And the answer to that was "if you're so afraid that selling will tank the value of the stock, then we [the government] will happily take your taxes as stocks directly, and we take on the risk that selling it will reduce its value".
> And the answer to that was "if you're so afraid that selling will tank the value of the stock, then we [the government] will happily take your taxes as stocks directly, and we take on the risk that selling it will reduce its value".
Yes indeed. It's basically saying "don't bother starting everything because the government will gradually just own it all anyway".
Absolutely ridiculous statement, it's not an accurate measure but it's definitely a good measure of money.
If you have 100B to your name even if it's post IPO stock in a possibly ponzi company that's your current wealth and you can easily convert a staggering portion of it into material realized wealth depending on several factors.
If I use cash to buy 1B dollars in Microsoft shares today, am I not worth a Billion dollars...?
The value may not be exactly convertible agreed so let's just force everyone to book all gains every year, and force sell a net percent of your share.
Not 100B$ of share, but 2% of 100 Million units of stock that you own. Why does this not work?
If I take 2% of your shares why can't it work the same way? I can then pick and sell it over the next year or two however I see fit, in case of govt they can slowly sell back this share to not affect the prices too much.
I am baffled by the fact that we have a tractible quantity and people call it hard to use to measure money.
Paintings, Jewels, etc. are what's truly the hard part of the wealth equation not the stocks, which is over 99% of what a wealthy billionaire owns.
I am not even considering pro or against taxes on billions people make but it's ridiculous to say stocks aren't money? Then what is money really... Currency is also traded, it's value can also go up or down....
> If I use cash to buy 1B dollars in Microsoft shares today, am I not worth a Billion dollars...?
Who says that the price you paid per share was the actual market value of the shares? For example, let's say that you inherited 10 million options to purchase Microsoft stock at $1/share, and in so exercising the options (by writing a check for, say, $10 million to Microsoft), you then end up with 10 million shares, which on paper, with the current stock price close to $500/share, would be worth close to $5 billion. But could you actually get that much money from selling 10 million shares? Definitely not overnight - so many shares getting dumped on the market at once would materially affect the stock price. The $5 billion number is a hypothetical that depends on other people backing up the hypothetical numbers with their own money (i.e. buying at the hypothetical price) - it is not the same as "I have $5 billion in a bank account and could use that to go buy a yacht and buy political ads etc. with it"
But you don't need to be taxed in actual dollar value you can be taxed in percentage of your share ownership.
It might not work with real estate but with stock this is trivial
On the contrary - it's trivial for controlling shareholders to direct the company to issue more stock to them and thus dilute the shares that were taxed. What do you propose, that companies can no longer issue stock after some of the stock has been taxed?
And what about non-divisible assets like real estate? There's nothing that prevents the government from forcing real estate to be held by LLCs instead of individuals, then shares in the LLC could slowly be taxed by the government. So what happens in 20 years when the government owns 50.1% of all the LLC shares that comprise the ownership of the $100 million Hollywood mansion? You're going to let a bureaucrat kick out the A-lister who lives there and put it up for auction? Attempt to sell it to someone who knows full well the same would happen to him?
It's very, very hard to design a wealth tax that doesn't end up being an assault on private ownership in all forms.
even still, the government can propose a value, and if the owner thinks its worth less than that, the government can immediately confiscate the asset and pay that price as compensation.
if the owner thinks its worth more than what the government proposes, they can pay tax on the higher amount.
> even still, the government can propose a value, and if the owner thinks its worth less than that, the government can immediately confiscate the asset and pay that price as compensation.
This is utter madness. What will happen is businesses will move en masse to places with economic systems not overrun by those driven clinically insane by years of listening to their favourite pundit blame billionaires for everything.
> If I use cash to buy 1B dollars in Microsoft shares today, am I not worth a Billion dollars...?
No. It will be higher. Say you spend your money on shares advertised at different prices, buying the cheapest first, like this:
800000 shares at $500 $400,000,000
300000 shares at $750 $225,000,000
200000 shares at $1000 $200,000,000
100000 shares at $1250 $125,000,000
33333 shares at $1500 $ 50,000,000
Total number of shares: 1433333
Net worth (1433333 * $1500): $2,149,999,500
Your "net worth" is over double the money you just spent.
If you have $2bn worth of the same listed stock and go sell half of those, now you have a net worth of $1400m because your gargantuan order drained the order depth, tanked the stock value and triggered a panicked selloff at the stock market which further drove down that stock's price.
You can't take net worth away because it's just an estimate of what someone is worth. It may eventually be possible to turned into dollars and cents without losing too much in the process, but almost universally it can't immediately be exchanged in such a fashion.
Even more so when we're talking shares in a company that is not yet public, e.g. a founder's shares. At that point the valuation is complete speculation, based on what the company may be worth in some hypothetical future IPO. There's no actual price discovery since there's no public trading of such shares.
as I said, if it were unreal you wouldn't mind losing it.
if it is illiquid, you clearly do.
economic illiteracy is not the best foundation for arguing against taxing the wealthy. by pretending the wealth "doesnt really exist" and "isnt there" to tax it highlights the underlying greed motivating the argument.
if you dont agree, perhaps elucidate on a more legitimate reason you might have had for confusing unreal with illiquid?
The lack of reality is mostly from how much net wealth is a guessestimate. The actual realizable wealth is largely unknowable. There isn't enough price information to give a certain answer.
But sure, how do you propose to pay taxes with assets that can't be liquidated and may not even be possible to valuate?
Even if you somehow pay taxes in assets that can't be liquidated, now the government has the same problem instead. What is the government gonna do, pay its employees in unlisted stocks, yachts and famous paintings? How will it even know how much taxes it's gathered?
If the tax isn't isn't just satisfying some sense of petty envy, and the tax is intended to cover some budget deficit, I don't see how this would help.
there is no lack of reality. you confused liquidity and wealth. a third time.
there are plenty of ways to handle the problem of taxing illiquid wealth but I dont think there is much value in discussing it with somebody pretending that means it is "not real".
it would be like discussing the science behind vaccines with somebody who persisted in calling them "poisons".
Net worth is usually not fully realizable unless it is in the form of cash. The larger the net worth, the smaller the realizable fraction usually is. In some cases, including some highly visible billionaires, the realizable fraction is likely tiny.
most people have very little illiquid wealth, and its generally in the form of a house.
billionaires are a tiny propertion of people, and their situation is as atypical as it comes. theres no reason to make super special accomodations for them, when theyre responsible for making their own dumb situation where they have too many assets to make them liquid on a hurry
There is a lot of literature on this. In the US, 2/3 of wealth is non-liquid so any attempt to price it is fiction. Of the 1/3 that is liquid, most is not realizable. Tax policy is effectively restricted to the liquid, realizable fraction, which is such a small percentage of the total that even modest-sounding percentages are a large percentage of what is practically taxable. Governments know this.
An overlooked issue in popular discourse is that notional asset values are tightly coupled to who owns them — it isn’t transferable. Concepts like “dead equity” have been in the finance literature for a very long time. Elon Musk’s equity only has the value it does because he owns it. He couldn’t convert it into cash even if he wanted to.
>Tax policy is effectively restricted to the liquid, realizable fraction
no it isnt. illiquid doesnt mean unpriceable and illiquid doesnt mean can't be liquidated. people liquidate their illiquid assets all the time to pay their tax bills.
it being "complex to collect" is a criticism of many taxes which are already being paid. sales tax and VAT are horrendously complicated (far more so than a wealth tax) to collect but we still do it.
>An overlooked issue in popular discourse is that notional asset values are tightly coupled to who owns them — it isn’t transferable. Concepts like “dead equity” have been in the finance literature for a very long time. Elon Musk’s equity only has the value it does because he owns it
even if it were true, it's not a good reason not to tax him.
in fact, it might even help bring some sanity to the capital markets if he and every other billionaire were forced to price their illiquid assets for tax purposes.
theres no efficiency or impossibility argument that prevents this. the only argument boils down to stamping one's feet declaring that it's not fair (that I would have to value my illiquid assets and might be forced to sell them if I underpriced them).
> He couldn’t convert it into cash even if he wanted to.
Elon musk has been converting his assets into cash recently and he has had no problem doing it.
Bill Gates similarly liquidated his assets to fund his charity and didnt have a problem doing that.
Why is liquidating their shareholdings suddenly a problem only when they need to pay taxes?
> Why is liquidating their shareholdings suddenly a problem only when they need to pay taxes?
It's not, and I don't think anyone said it was.
The problem is in the calculation of "net worth". And, more importantly, the difference is that people choosing to put their money into something is not the same as enabling it to be taken by force.
Yeah you did. You wrote "he couldnt turn it [his illiquid assets] into cash even if he wanted to".
>The problem is in the calculation of "net worth".
That is not a problem.
Let them value their own assets. If they value their ming vase at $10k then the government reserves the right to buy it for...$10k. They might get away with avoiding paying taxes. Or the government might get a bargain. The incentive, though, is to be scrupulously honest and accurate.
Some people obviously wouldn't like being put in such a position.
> And, more importantly, the difference is that people choosing to put their money into something is not the same as enabling it to be taken by force.
Im not 100% sure but I think this falls under the category of just saying "wealth taxes not fair!"
I would care more about the broken tax system if the politicians didn't waste our tax money. Stop the fraud and the corruption and the incompetence and then let's talk about increasing taxes.
$24 B unaccounted for and lost that was supposed to be for homelessness.
$12 B already spent on high speed rail and they want $120 B more.
$50 B in EDD unemployment fraud during the pandemic.
This is just in California in the last year or two.
How much more fraud and corruption and incompetence is there that we just don't know about?
There is no way I will agree to any increase in taxes just to see it wasted and going to corruption and political buddies on every side of the aisle.
>Stop the fraud and the corruption and the incompetence and then let's talk about increasing taxes.
Zero taxes is the only right answer. Any talk of taxation means that you have already given in to being exploited, because it's a slippery slope. Let's be realistic - corruption will never end. The only way to reduce it is to starve the beast.
Larry Page owns about 5% of Alphabet, which is worth $4T, so he has $200B give or take. Which part of that do you think reflects a "broken tax system"? Companies should get kneecapped if their market cap gets too high? Founders shouldn't be allowed to keep even a single digit percent of the company?
The broken part is that there is third world-level poverty on the streets outside Google’s offices, working class people cannot afford to live in the Bay Area, and a fifth of California lives in poverty.
I agree that that's the major problem; the poverty is inexcusable. But that's not caused by the $300B (or whatever) of equity. It's caused because the homeowners of the Bay Area decided that once they got a house, nobody else should, and that they should get to exclude others from the opportunities they had.
This same thing was observed during the Gold Rush in California in the 1800s; extreme wealth also resulted in extreme poverty. And there's a great way to solve this: tax the land and redistribute it equally to everyone. Land can't be moved, it's something that belongs to all of us, and you can't make more of it.
You sort of can make more land -- by building tall buildings. Unfortunately the Bay Area has mostly outlawed that, too. And we can't blame that just on homeowners. SF "tenant advocates" are just as violently allergic to developers building new structures as homeowners are. But the worst offenders are definitely Peninsula and South Bay homeowners.
That distinction between tall buildings and shorter buildings on the same plot of land is exactly why the land should be taxed.
Economic land is any capital that has a fixed amount, that you can't make more of. When the local governments in the Bay Area started capping the amount of buildable square feet, they greatly accelerated inequality by converting regular living space and working space into economic land, just like the real land it sits upon.
This is why economic inequality skyrocketed so much. Rentierism resulted in so much being stolen from anybody who doesn't own the land, and blocks out so many people from even having access to the economic system.
Tenant advocates recognize that eviction is an existential threat to their way of life and so understandably they are fighting for their short term future. I disagree with their efforts in the long term, but I understand why they'd do what they're doing.
In contrast when you have enormously wealthy people like Marc Andreessen fighting against higher density zoning there is no such excuse and it's pure greed. Nothing could actually be an existential disruption to the wealthy in the same way. There is no reason to listen to the rich like Andreessen at all.
The equitable thing would be to focus on redeveloping wealthy homeowner areas and limit redevelopment in areas occupied by poor renters, but somehow that option never seems to be on the table. Only the reverse.
I tend to keep quiet on the following critiques, because it can be counterproductive to larger goals to speak the truth sometimes, but something in this comment got to me and I need to share my truth. You're too kind on the "tenant" advocacy groups here. They are nearly 100% funded by wealth foundations that have exactly the same motivations as Marc Andreesen, and the people carrying out the wishes of the wealthy foundations are merely woke-washing really bad behavior. These "tenant" groups fight the types of change that would redevelop wealthy areas, precisely because of their funding sources, and they do it just as hard if not harder than stopping housing going up in other areas.
If anything, these "tenant" groups only advocate for the interests of a small subset of tenants, those who have their forever home, and do so at the expense of tenants in general. It's "pure greed" too, at the expense of others in their same general social, economic, and political class!
I say this as someone who continues to advocate alongside tenant groups on policy for better protections, for rent registries, etc. And as someone who spent many years giving small donations to local tenant advocacy groups. At least Andreesen is transparent in his greed, and not hiding it. I regret all those years of donations to the groups that hurt people, but when it comes to the few good things they do I'll be there with them still. Marc Andreesen and the wealthy funders of "tenant" groups are not harmed at all by better tenant protection policy, but boy are they harmed if real power were handed back to tenants in the form of having enough housing, and therefore ultimate power over the landlords.
Well I'm speaking from first hand experience knowing working people who live in such situations. Their existence is so precarious that a change in housing situation is indeed existential. So even if there are some disingenuous tenancy orgs out there, it doesn't change the reality that this is a real problem.
> They are nearly 100% funded by wealth foundations that have exactly the same motivations as Marc Andreesen, and the people carrying out the wishes of the wealthy foundations are merely woke-washing really bad behavior.These "tenant" groups fight the types of change that would redevelop wealthy areas, precisely because of their funding sources, and they do it just as hard if not harder than stopping housing going up in other areas.
Certainly not the case in my jurisdiction of Vancouver, where such political groups (eg. COPE) have explicitly advocated for apartment development in the wealthiest areas of the city. Maybe this is the case somewhere but a big [citation needed] here. If there are somewhere tenant advocacy orgs that aren't in favour of turning low density detached homes into apartments for workers that's certainly not one I recognize.
> If anything, these "tenant" groups only advocate for the interests of a small subset of tenants, those who have their forever home, and do so at the expense of tenants in general. It's "pure greed" too, at the expense of others in their same general social, economic, and political class!
Yes this is the point of my last comment. The solution is to increase the amount of people who have their forever home. The most equitable way to do that is to "destroy" the forever homes of the very rich for whom that is really no big disruptive deal, not to destroy the forever homes of the poor for whom it would be incredibly existentially disruptive. It is not "greedy" for people to want to keep their toehold on their long term home. To be clear the stakes here are not simply moving somewhere else but being priced out of the city entirely.
This is almost completely traceable to Californians' failure to allow sufficiently dense housing to be built on their doorsteps. The only thing Larry did was bring prosperity to the region.
Read somewhere that SF spends roughly 50k$-80k$ per homeless person per year.
Taxing more doesn't solve a massively inefficient system at it's core. Just like US education, we spend more than any country on earth, why is it still bad?
Answering that question with a "if only we had more money" is a really poor argument. The CA tax fundamentals are bad, pooring more cash onto the fire will not fix that.
And, many people who are poor have persistent mental/physical disabilities, so part of that spending is because many of these people have it the hardest.
With that said, we could likely fix all of these things and significantly unequal wealth distribution would still result in a lot of poverty.
96k$?! Those are rookie numbers. I propose a mclaren for every homeless person. We will weath tax all stocks in the fortune 500 to pay for it, crash the stocks and solve inequality.
You can't solve a shortage with demand subsidies. You need to expand supply. SF has too little housing relative to its population, and has perennially tried throwing money at the nonprofit industrial complex which has (obviously) perennially failed to solve the problem because it doesn't generate new housing units, it just bids up and reshuffles the existing ones (and steals a lot of money in the process).
This has basically nothing to do with with market cap of Google or Larry Page's percentage ownership of it; and the state government taxing it more will not make this situation any better.
Landlords could have collectively agreed to keep rents at $1K/month and not lobby against building more housing complexes, but they decided to be greedy instead.
that has ZERO to do with the tax system... You can't be serious? Have you looked at the data at all? have you seen how much money is spent "combatting" homelessness in San Francisco?
just not his problem. not a single motherfucker on this website lives their life as if wealth disparities are a genuine problem anyways. you are motivated by resentment
> Companies should get kneecapped if their market cap gets too high?
Yes. They should be broken up because competition is good for consumers and society. If we had functional anti-trust enforcement Google would not have a near-monopoly on search ads where they own both the ad inventory and the marketplace where you have to buy those placements.
Why does it matter how much the shares of his company are worth? They just represent ownership of a company. It's not like their existence is somehow holding back wealth from the market or from other people. And if he wants to sell the shares to make some cash, then he's going to have to pay taxes on that, which is good for everyone else. And he wouldn't do that unless he planned to spend or invest the cash receives, which is also good for everyone else. I fail to see the harm.
I think one could argue that taxation should be higher, and harder to dodge, and I would agree with that.
But once you start saying that some people shouldn't have more than others to some degree, that's a very slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? Why is it okay for middle class Americans to buy nicer clothes and move into bigger apartments when people are out there starving? If it's not okay for someone to have the net worth of Qatar, why would it be okay for someone to live in an apartment that's worth more than a poor township in South Africa?
At some point we have to accept that inequality exists, and that although almost everyone could do something to minimize it, there's an ethical and practical line that needs to also respect individuality to a large degree, if we want people to feel incentivized to do things, to feel ownership, to maintain autonomy. And where to draw that line is tough to say exactly, but it probably shouldn't be a line, it should probably be smooth, or at least smooth-ish. So I feel like we're just coming back around to progressive taxation. Which we already have.
That, exactly, is the problem. It's not even about money and tax evasion but power. Why should one person have more say over the company they work for than 10,000 other employees? Or even worse they don't even work there anymore and just control it from outside?
Even if they are a perfectly good and business smart person who never makes bad decisions or abuses their workers. They will eventually die or sell their share, and in either case it will end up with people who care less about the company's long term health than the founder did. Profit maximizers with no ethics and no feeling of responsibility.
I think the concept of shareholders is the problem. Layoffs, cartels and price inflation happen when the people who make decisions get all the benefits but none of the downsides. If it was up to me I would ban stocks and replace them with time limited shares that give you a right to part of the profits for 1 or 5 or 10 years, but zero control over the company. Leave power to workers and returns to investors but never bind the two together.
If you taxed him half of that wealth he'd still have single digit percentage of the company.
The broken tax system is that I get taxed about 50% on my marginal income dollar --- the system doesn't wait for me to spend it first --- but when his stock portfolio appreciates by a dollar, he's not taxed! Not until he sells in order to spend. Why are we taxing labor so much more than capital?
And no, I don't think that inventing pagerank really entitles two people to $200B. Although in their case I don't think they've done as much harm with it as some other billionaires.
When your job pays you a dollar, you get an actual dollar. Your job never claws that money back. Unrealized capital gains are not money, and they routinely get clawed back. Unrealized capital gains just means someone in New York traded GOOG/GOOGL at a higher price than they did yesterday.
And, sure, super-rich people can in theory use the appreciated stock as collateral for loans and not pay taxes, but in practice Larry and most other centi-billionaires actually sell loads of stock and pay a lot in capital gains taxes because having your status as super rich dude who owns a huge yacht be totally dependent on Google's stock price is a dumb risk to take on, and it's worth paying some taxes to eliminate that risk.
> When your job pays you a dollar, you get an actual dollar.
No.. many cents of it are withheld, by law.
Elon uses his vast wealth to influence, intimidate, and generally get away with lawlessness. He effectively took huge loans from banks to buy a giant bullhorn in Twitter. Those loans are collaterized by unrealized capital gains. And more generally, billionaires have the ear of politicians because of what they could do with their money. So you don't need to realize gains (gains which are taxed at a more or less flat rate!) to make use of your wealth.
Though like I said, Larry is not really a bad guy in the world of billionaires. I would only support taxing him more than I would support levying additional taxes on w2 income assuming CA actually had a provable need for more money. (Right now I think they waste most of the budget.)
He has single digit percentage of the company but double digits percentage of voting stock. My understanding is that he and Brin are holding together barely above 50% of the latter and understandably do not want to lose the control.
The part where he has access to essentially unlimited untaxed cashflow by borrowing against that asset. Especially with how the market has been lately, the gains erase any burden of the loan. Something has be done about this, at least. Otherwise broken sounds about right.
Larry has sold tons of Alphabet stock and paid lots of capital gains taxes. This is easily available public information. The whole buy-borrow-die thing is sort of a stupid myth. Actual centibillionaires diversify because the risk of having a huge concentrated position is much greater than the liability of having to pay some capital gains taxes.
Well, why does something have to be done about this, exactly? Who is getting hurt here? It's not like borrowing is increasing his net worth. Just like anyone else, he has to pay back what he borrows, he immediately owes an equal debt. And that requires actual income, which gets taxed.
> Just like anyone else, he has to pay back what he borrows, he immediately owes an equal debt. And that requires actual income, which gets taxed.
In theory, maybe, but in practice that is not what happened over the past decade(s). Instead our retirement funds are paying it back.
When the market grows it makes the collateral worth more, which lets the holder keep refinancing the debt instead of selling assets and realizing taxable gains. As long as the assets appreciate faster than the debt grows, the borrowing can effectively roll forward for decades. Eventually the estate pays the debt out of the assets themselves, but this is not necessarily out of taxable income earned during the person's lifetime. The US markets has seen exceptional genuine growth, but the trillions of 401(k), IRA, etc money flowing in to them over the last 40 years is no small consideration.
> Well, why does something have to be done about this, exactly?
The something here is what's required to have a functional tax system. Without addressing this situation I do see an argument that we have one. How important that is to one is another question.
the people getting hurt is anyone who would have bought something but was outbit by larry page's free money glitch.
he doesnt necessarily have to pay it back either. he could just take out another loan against his same now higher valued assets to pay off the old loan
like, if a company's market cap gets too big, the law should stop applying to them? they should be allowed to start their own militaries and enforce martial law a la east india company?
how does a founder keep a single digit of their company after theyve been dead for a thousand years?
These arent nearly as absolute as you are making them to be.
a founder can keep their percent by paying their taxes with other money they have, or by decreasing the worth of their company. theyre a founder, they have control. Maybe founders wont be so keen to enshittify their products if theres a downside to continued growth forever. considering google dropped "dont be evil" in exchange for making larry page's 1% grow for the sake of growing, how's society at large benefiting from continuing to subsidize it?
Yes perhaps there should be wealth caps. Did Larry Page really do 5% of all that labor that made google as big as it is? And should a single company get so big and have so much power? Yes, I get that they took risks and invested early, and we shouldn't take away that type of incentive, but perhaps it should have caps, or an S curve tax schedule.
Google doesn't have much power. It can't arrest you or pass laws or vote. It just happens to produce a lot of profits for its shareholders (who are, overwhelmingly, average people with 401Ks) and a lot of profits means a big market cap.
If we need revenue to fund useful government programs, great, let's tax Larry. But I don't understand what problem is solved by expropriation qua expropriation.
it does have monopoly power and anticompetitive power all over the place though.
google bans are quite intrusive, but google could pretty easily with their graph knowledge apply secondary or tertiary sanctions, at which point you would not be able to do much of anything, same as if the US government sanctioned you
> If you let someone get to hundreds of billions in net worth
"Let someone"? I guess the right to pursue one's happiness is not all that self-evident after all. One should first ask permission, and, if we are in a good mood, we might "let them" pursue their happiness.
Norway, Spain, and Switzerland have wealth (net worth) taxes. Why don't we see the same outrage from rich people living there? Also, most billionaires get rich with equity in a business that they built. How else can we tax that net worth?
Not only that but they are actively moving into these countries, because, like everybody, they like a functioning government that provides infrastructure, housing and health care for their citizens. This makes for much more livable cities and a happy society.
Actually, in Norway there is some outrage. Many people with (a lot of) money move to Switzerland. There is also the issue that startups are being taxed on "paper money" — the value of the firm on paper based on expected future income — even though they have not yet started earning money.
From what I can find, the top wealth tax rate in Norway is about 1.1%. That seems pretty dumb to leave your home country to avoid paying 1.1% tax per year. For entrepreneurs that now have enormous equity (100s of millions of Euros), my sympathy is low. They can easy sell a tiny fraction of their equity to investors to pay the wealth tax.
We're in a situation where it's already "too late". We can't go back 100 years. How do you propose we fix it, assuming time machines won't get invented soon?
Additionally, the state gets to tax you on what they say you’re worth based on the markets. That’s a pretty weird way to assign dollar value to someone instead of, say, looking at how many dollars they have.
While stock markets provide useful liquidity for investors entering and exiting positions, they are also rampant with finbro kids doing nothing more than jumped-up gambling. We don’t know which market trades fall into the serious wheels-of-capitalism bucket, and which are gambling, because we don’t have to know. The real world works in dollars so, to date, the state taxes people on the realized capital gain in dollars.
If a bunch of kids are selling handfuls of leaves to each other for a nickel each is the state now valuing my unkempt forest at $99bn? The state is welcome to pull up a chair and watch me try to sell 5 kilotons of leaves to every kindergarten playground in the country. If I succeed then it will take its cut of the capital gain. If I fail, it will not.
When the state starts looking inside the market black box and guesses, based on little Johnny and Becky’s recent playground trades, that I might be able to get at least $300 a tonne for my damp, rotting leaves, then the state is doing something at best weird and at worst unfair, and states doing unfair things is really bad.
Fix the system properly: when you inherit stock, you inherit the cost basis as well. Rinsing off capital gains liabilities through “buy/borrow/die” is the real villain here.
If the $100B+ was created through ownership of a company and is unrealized wealth, how would you have taxed it if not through a wealth tax? Nobody is getting to $100B by way of income.
If you let someone get to hundreds of billions in net worth and then realize they haven’t been appropriately paying back into the system, it’s already too late. Like the article says they can simply say “no” in a variety of ways, from fighting in court to simply leaving.
And care about the rule of law. You cannot pass retroactive laws, you cannot pass laws that target individual people. If you pass a general law (which could very well have reasonable objections), people have to have a chance to leave.
"I'm passing this law that is effective the exact millisecond I sign it, tough shit if you don't like it" is tyranny and despotism. But based on your comment I think you know that.
> And care about the rule of law. You cannot pass retroactive laws, you cannot pass laws that target individual people. If you pass a general law...
A wealth tax is not a retroactive law, nor something that targets an individual person. It's a "general law" in your parlance. Think about it.
> If you pass a general law (which could very well have reasonable objections), people have to have a chance to leave.
I don't think so. By what legal authority is that required?
> "I'm passing this law that is effective the exact millisecond I sign it, tough shit if you don't like it" is tyranny and despotism. But based on your comment I think you know that.
No, it's not, and don't be ridiculous. When they passed laws against date-rape, would you have judged it "tyranny and despotism" unless the law was delayed to give the date-rapers time to finish up the date-rapes they'd planned?
There's no justice in giving the wealthy the maximum opportunity to pick and choose the laws that apply to them.
ah yes, all the tech billionaires of this era, had they been given the heads up that there success would have led to a level of concentration of wealth and power previously unknown to humanity, and that the populace would likely call for some changes to tax law to address the largely unforeseeable structural economic effects of this level of change they brought, would certainly have opted out, leaving the US, and moving to another less tyrannical part of the world, where, by the unique magnitude of their genius, they would have brought all their great works to the glory of other nations and not to America with its overly entitled peasants and social media sharecroppers; clearly the rule of law in Europe and China would have allowed them to fully manifest their unparalleled vision of technological greatness without any concern of a rug-pull by authorities challenging their well-deserved hegemony
What hyperbolic nonsense, just because something doesn't affect me doesn't mean it can't be bad policy. Wealth taxes are a fool's errand and serve only to damage and slow the economy.
Property tax increases are hamstrung by Prop 13 and until that’s repealed, will continue to be.
And while the wealthy always threaten to leave when faced with higher taxes, the fact is that they never seem to actually do so.
The site is based around georgism whose fundamental premise is that taxing land is the universal solution (much like for republicans cutting taxes is their solution to everything: economy going great? We should cut taxes. Economy going poorly? Cut taxes. Deficit too high? Cut taxes.) I don’t put much stock in analysis by single-solution thinkers.
They're hamstrung by property tax increases being massively politically unpopular. Prop 13 only bans taxes on the value of land, there's nothing stopping politicians from approximating LVT by an "urban acreage tax" based off plot size in cities other than the fact that it'd get them all voted out.
Even the conservative states who supposedly stand for the individual can’t get anything like proposition 13 passed through their state legislature and it’s been over 48 years.
California is the perfect picture of neoliberalism. They've privatized as many government functions as possible and, shocker, the public-private partnership has ended up with a LOT of waste and fraud.
Without very strong oversight, you cannot trust these private companies to not simply suck down every single dollar the government is willing to offer. A private business whose only client is governments will never ever be cost effective. They'll always charge as much as possible while offering the most minimal quality possible. That's how they increase their profit margins.
Whats wild is the commercial side didn’t get closed. I understand the argument for individuals or households (I don’t love it - I’m on the wrong side of it, but at least it’s somewhat defensible), but if you’re running a business and your income isn’t keeping up with inflation, that’s called failing.
Old voters like the house they brought 20 years ago for 100k being worth 1.5 million today. They also like not paying taxes on that 1.4m in wealth accumulation.
Then it would be taxed under inheritance tax (at the full value of the property - not just the gains).
Edit - I’m wrong, I am uk based - just read up on US, wild that you can inherit a house that’s gone up in value massively then sell it and experience no gains or inheritance tax.
opposite, income taxes take place first. after a waiting period, its just capital gains. capital gains taxes are typically lower than income taxes so this encourage long term holding
I think not wanting to pay some yearly tax on that $1.4 million because the government pretends that the same as having $1.4M cash in the bank, or making $1.4M in a year, is fine.
Not wanting to pay the property taxes associated with a $1.5M home is the problem.
Which is why we also have things like a deferred property tax program! The way to "solve" the problems Prop 13 addresses would be to expand programs like that, but homeowners—disproportionately active middle- and upper-middle-class voters—want to have their cake and eat it too.
It drives me crazy that California voters will wave through every single regressive sales tax hike that is placed in front of them, yet they will crawl through broken glass to vote against a property tax hike on corporations.
Acting like a jerk is not the best way to deal with bad content. Our software autokills generated comments and we downweight slop posts multiple times daily – when we know about it. Maybe the way to deal with junk content is not to create more junk content? You can just email us.
If the SEIU healthcare workers union is going to amend the state constitution, they should chip away at Proposition 13 instead of amending the constitution to make a bad tax that encourages capital flight.
But neglects to consider why it won a majority of votes. Why did it? And how does Prop 13 relate to the more recent Prop 19, which substantially weakened it?
Why would someone spend their time online advocating for themselves to pay a higher percentage of their wealth to taxes than people who make more than them?
You already pay a wealth tax. It's called property tax. Most people wealth (if any) is concentrated in the house or appartement they live in. And so the real wealth tax is already here.
This is the reason I would leave if I was a billionaire. Living in California I never felt like my tax dollars got me anything more than they got me in other states and if the city/country/state got even more I knew it would go to some sort of tomfoolery like a high speed rail that doesn’t actually get built or a $1m bathroom.
please count how much money california (and SF specifically) spent on "homelessness" and what does the California has to show for it? its 24 billion with a giant B.
If you are a billionaire or 100 millionaire, you probably got rich in California, Washington, or Oregon, or probably in the northeast of America in the last 50-60 years, if prop 40 passes, it will have the same effect as prop 13, a positive effect long-term that is, if you manage your finances, most of the states in the Union you are out of luck. why is that?
As someone who lives in California. Goodbye please move to one of those red states. Florida? This percenter will stay in California, and if I had to, the only other two places I would go would be Washington or Oregon, and if the United States was still on good terms with Canada, British Columbia which doesn’t look too bad, but I’m staying on the west coast of North America.
214 out of 40 million people, there is no need to carry water or suck up to them.
I don’t have experience elsewhere but in Santa Clara county, the county assessor calculates a very much incorrect split between land value and value of the improvements (buildings) when they assess the property tax. Sometimes they just divide the total value by two and call it value of the land; in other cases the value seems to match reality more, and the value of improvements match the actual cash value (but not replacement cost) from insurance companies.
How would a land value tax accurately compute the land value?
Not all assessors do this accurately, especially in California, but there are many that do. This article includes a section on land valuation which summarizes and links out to various other articles about various approaches
> In its ideal form, this tax would capture and redistribute the annual rental value of land; that is, the recurring value of the land excluding the value of any buildings or other improvements on top of it.
> but you see the same basic patterns everywhere. Land in the city center is worth much, much more than outlying areas.
The calculation of the "unimproved value" always perplexed me.. it seems like you're not taxed for the things you build on your land, but instead for the things other people built around your land. After all, why would property in a city be valuable if not for all the high rises, subways, and office buildings?
It, in effect, turns out not really to be a land value tax at all. It turns out to be a tax on the most valuable thing that _could_ be built there because that's what gives land it's value.
So you're completely correct, the value of the land changes with what's around it because it opens up new options for what someone might build there.
this is the idea - if theres a lot of value around you, you should build to make sure you are meeting the bar of whats around you in terms of economic activity.
if you build even more and get more out of the land than whats around you, you essentially get a lower tax rate until your neighbors catch up.
if you lag behind, you pay a premium in taxes to not develop
There is a very weird but real phenomenon where it costs more to build/remodel in an upscale part of town. Roof repair: same roof, same company, two jobs 10 miles apart with wildly different invoices.
As I see it, the value in a wealth tax isn't just in a cash grab. It's about reining in the behaviour of the wealthy.
If you can cap individual wealth to eight or maybe nine figures, you take options like "bankroll major state/national elections on a whim" and "buy up major media and communications brands" off the table. As far as I'm concerned, these are things we can do without and probably have a healthier society as a result.
California's attempt might be well-intentioned, but it seems so weaksauce that it won't reach to the behaviour-modifying level.
The "why bother investing" mentality that's used to argue against Georgist land-taxes might be interesting applied to a high wealth tax too. If your stock portfolio is already approaching the cutoff line, will you press as aggressively for that last short-term bubble with long-term expenses?
California spends an insane amount on combating homelessness with nothing to show for it. This is a difficult problem to solve for sure; I'm not an expert in this field and would be speaking out of turn were I to suggest preferable alternatives. Suffice it to say that billions of dollars are being flushed down the toilet doing whatever is being done right now.
No california has an NGO homeless industry, which gets paid on the amount of homelessness. They are incentivised on increasing homelessness, thus this is what they do.
Exactly $0 of high speed rail infrastructure was funded by sales taxes. State dollars came from prop 1a and cap and trade funds. About 12B over a decade and a half for heavy engineering, land acquisition etc. if that money was not spent it would have a negligible impact on your taxes.
Everything the California government does has a negligible impact on my taxes. However, the sum of it is not negligible. I'd rather them not waste money because it's "negligible".
Idaho. No. Idaho has almost the worst per-capita GDP in the country but California dollars go a long way there, although not as far as they used to. Californians also like to use the phrase “don’t Califonicate Idaho”, because high wages there would ruin their lifestyle, which is paid for by their California dollars.
Prop 13 should only cover primary residences. No vacation homes, no investment homes, no apartment complexes, no Airbnbs, no commercial properties, no offices. This single change would fix the majority of the state's tax shortfall. Going on about billionaires and not fixing this obvious loophole should tell you that people in charge aren't actually interested in solving the problem, just using populism to get votes.
I was talking to a friend about the billionaire's tax and this issue came up. Here's how I see it: either individually wealthy people stay here, and we take their money to build state capacity to even out the distortions created by their wealth, or, they leave, and the distortions fix themselves.
The easiest one to point to is property prices. Wealthy people buy land, and drive up the price of land and rent for everyone else. If a lot of people suddenly make a lot of money in San Francisco, in general, for me and most of the people I know, there's no "rising tide" that lifts our boats. Our income remains the same, but our rent goes up, and maybe our lives don't make sense anymore, and we have to move.
But if there's a wealth tax, and it encourages rich people to leave the state? Awesome. Go drive up rents in Texas or Montana or somewhere else. Or pay the tax, and then the state can use that money to build affordable housing.
Before you say anything: I lived through the 90s, and you can't trick me with "WOW YOU THINK THE GOVERNMENT CAN DO THINGS? WHAT ABOUT THE DMV???" Go somewhere else.
Perhaps I'm uniquely able to read and understand simple instructions, or maybe I've never asked the DMV to do anything especially complicated, but I've never had the DMV fail to do what I came there to have it do for me. The worst I've gotten from a DMV was having to wait for literally an entire day when I made the mistake of going to the San Francisco DMV to get something done, rather than doing the smart thing and going to an office in one of the nearby towns. It's... very stupid that there's a single DMV office for a city of -last I checked- nearly a million people.
The problem is the wealthy people can still buy and own the land without being residents. These billionaires "moved" to Austin or Florida or wherever, but they still own the same multi-million dollar mansions in the bay area or LA or wherever. They just spend less time in them.
The Chinese model fixes this problem, albeit with a heavy hand. The state's power can never be subordinated, billionaires are checked by the state and strict capital controls stop them from having a backup bunker of gold bars outside China. I think they also limit dual citizenship to some extent. Heavy handed though it may be, for 99% of Americans you would have 0 negative impact, but it would align incentives better. With a cooperative tax policy between states there would be less of a race to the bottom and tax-integrity could be maintained. A home would count as a residence regardless of whether you "reside" there. Maybe then we would promote both nationalism and state/community integration. Having to bear the full brunt of state residency tax ramifications could enforce less empty homes and more investment in states they reside.
I understand why LVT is compelling. Wealthy people can subordinate or borrow state capacity and monopoly on violence, while driving legislation. There needs to be some check on power.
In your example, you are 100% correct. It doesn't stop at Austin; we have a transnational class of people who no longer care about the nation itself.
I don't think that makes sense. The wealth tax, as written affects a pretty small percentage of "rich people". Most "rich people" will not pay a wealth tax.
So sure, let's say for the sake of your argument that everyone who would be subject to the wealth tax moves away. That won't move the needle when it comes to housing affordability in California.
So, ok, change the wealth tax so it applies to a lot more people. Ok, so maybe more people leave. Do you really think driving people with money out of your state will actually be good for you and the state? That's just not how economics works.
> Do you really think driving people with money out of your state will actually be good for you and the state?
If your state is selling 500sqft condos for $3,000 a month, then yes, it probably would increase the average quality-of-life for that state's residents.
Wealthy people won’t be driven out of the state. There is a reason why California, Washington, Oregon and the northeastern United States are doing well in comparison to the great middle it’s the total package.
Geography, post-secondary education, relative openness/acceptance/tolerance towards people who are different, religion, race, ethnic group etc.
The best decision my parents made was leaving Tennessee and Texas and coming to California thank you.
I don't think this assessment is connected with reality. Land on its own isn't valuable, its the labour and investment people put in while on the land that produces taxable value. Just because the land can't leave doesn't mean the value of the land stays. As long as the government spends more than it can collect, simply charging more people to operate will cause regular people to leave. The higher you tax above the laffer optimal you are just destroying value. My opinion.
The billionaire tax is an experiment, they did put the bar pretty high to measure how many families will relocate (that's super easy to track); once that's measured, it's easy to build a model to adjust this threshold to whatever is advantageous for the state and keep things in balance this way, where the outflow is carefully measured and weighted against the tax threshold. The "hard part" was just getting this to pass the vote; then they can adjust this threshold anytime as voters have already approved it. What isn't measured is that billionaires create jobs "around them"; and, implicitly, jobs will be created somewhere else; unfortunately this model will not measure that.
I’m not convinced billionaires “create jobs” in any meaningful numbers.
Sure, the companies that made them wealthy do, but the billionaires themselves? Doubt.
So if the only consequence of this is that the billionaires flee to Texas, with its regressive taxes, and take the wealth inequality and corruption that goes with them… I’m not seeing that as a bad thing.
Depends on the billionaire. If it's someone with a large chunk of a large company, each billion dollars represents hundreds of skilled people employed to do something.
If a state is hostile, then why not move that activity? And that's before the direct lobbying at a federal level.
I think the point of the article is correct; the issue with CA is everyone wants to live there, including rich people. If we try and tax them then they'll leave just long enough to not pay state income tax, if we tax property values then the state actually gets the tax and doesn't miss out on job creation or future revenue.
Red states have implemented low income tax with heavy property taxes (think Texas) with great results. and although I'm sure California would just manage to mess it up it's a great idea.
I would not frame Texas as having great results. If anything places should get as little like Texas as they possibly can. I mean they send you to jail for an abortion or a gram of weed. It's living under Shari-yall law.
The lack of a progressive income tax structure gives texas few levers to ameliorate budget issues without cutting services or raising property taxes. It doesn't help the current governor seems to be pushing city budgets to the brink by also cutting off the property tax lever.
Out of curiosity, why couldn't property taxes be progressive? What stops Texas from having different tax rates based on the value of the property?
It even seems like it avoids a lot the pit falls the uber-wealthy use to avoid most progressive income taxes. Its easy to disguise income as something else. Property, though, is right out in the open. The state can easily audit and value property and send the bill. No matter how fancy the accounting, that bill will eventually reach the person "consuming" that property.
In practice, at least from what I've read, in TX, the largest/wealthiest companies get the biggest/best tax breaks (eg Tesla), and end up paying proportionally less, so it's somewhat regressive.
In Texas, like Florida, you get a bill for all improvements within your neighborhood or development as they come. Just because the tax may appear low on the front end, that doesn’t mean you don’t pay for the same relative lifestyle as everybody else in the United States of America.
Even though all the states have their differences they all live relatively the same, in short, if you are an average person, you pay pretty much the same as any place else. It’s only the wealthy who get to hopscotch and dance over the top of all the bodies of the (working class) below.
There’s nothing California can learn from Texas, but if you want to live like Texas or Oklahoma, you can just move to Bakersfield, California hint: that part of California sucks.
I agree the proposed wealth tax is a bad idea, but raising property taxes is probably not viable. They are incredibly unfavorable to voters. No one who owns a home wants to pay rent, that's why you buy in the first place.
Personally, this is why I am fine with higher income or sales taxes.
Not even the poor. Really everyone working. I would much rather sleep all day and live off of a pile of money than to show up somewhere and do something for money. That's the tax -- 35% of your waking hours are now at the service of someone else. And yet, they charge income tax on that. Stay home and live off a stash of money in your mattress, 0% tax, 0 obligations. Wake up and commute to work, 35% of your week gone, 35% of your "income" gone.
I am not even that mad that I personally have to pay taxes. I enjoy funding government programs! I think I owe society something! But it sure doesn't make sense that already being rich makes you immune to giving back to the society that made you that way.
Which is why the majority of people in California who work for a living shouldn’t be carrying any water for billionaires or hundred millionaires, you could even extend that down to someone who’s worth 10 million, until you get to that level, you don’t realize how many people over that level have it very easy.
In comparison to the majority of the population, you know the other 99%. That’s right, you heard it right. 99% of the population does not have $10 million free and clear without debt. In other words, if you are still paying off your house you are not in that upper bracket.
the rich are an astounding amount of wealthy such that they dont show up and still make a good poor wage in the first couple hours/days of a year by their assets increasing in value
you are poor, even if you are doing plenty well for yourself
The numbers on wealth distribution are shocking, to say the least. I think wealth taxes without loopholes are a really good idea in the current circumstances, infact I believe it may not go far enough. And I think there has to be a global concerted effort to tax wealth.
The working class are starting to choke and drown in financial stress, and this will only get worse. Capital naturally accretes and we've never had this level of capital concentration in human history.
> No one who owns a home wants to pay rent, that's why you buy in the first place.
If this is actually a common attitude, people are... ridiculous. Real property is a limited resource, and allowing people to own property comes with strings attached. This is a pretty normal thing in very many places.
But I do agree that raising property taxes in CA in particular is a politically toxic topic.
They just want continually delivered services from the city funded by taking out increasing amounts of debt or selling off new land in a ponzi scheme to fund existing obligations.
Sales Taxes are the worst ones. Burden on seller, burden on buyer, regressive. Income is more fair but easy to mask-out for the wealthy. Property is meh, Wealth tax is the best one. Assuming all were well designed.
Sales tax and the gasoline tax are use taxes. They are about as fair (democratic) as you’re gonna get because it’s based upon use most the other taxes whether they’re high or low, you can’t escape from particularly if you are the average person in the middle, and once again, if you benefit from capital gains, that is a huge life-changing benefit, which most working people don’t have. Vote yes. on proposition 40 if you are in California the less than .001 and even the 1% will easily survive.
Some items taxable, some are not. Keep track. Some have different rates depending on who's buying, keep track. Buyers in different locations pay different rates, keep track. The rules change frequently, keep track. Collect money for the govt, keep track. Remit quarterly or face penalty.
There complexity and overhead on sales taxes; more than on an income, retained earnings or wealth taxes.
Also, sales taxes take more percent of wealth away from the lower wealth bracket than from the upper wealth bracket.
Most land I bet is leveraged (hence the high price!) and taxing it will put pressure on home owners and investors. It is great for the truely rich who have a $50m mansion because it is chump change and will pay $375k which is approx zero but for someone with a typical house $1m it is $7500 which is less money for food and other household expenses and they may be paying a big mortgage already and not rich in the true sense.
Taxation ain't simple. There are always second order effects.
I am not against land tax but using it as a kneejerk levy could have unintended consequences.
Instead taper onto a reasonable land tax. Just raise taxes if you need more money in a fair and progressive way.
Of all the places you can avoid flight from to avoid tax California must be the easiest.
Since so much of land value is in downtowns, in a theoretical shift to land value tax, most of the increased land value revenue would come from vacant and underdeveloped parcels downtown. The median tax burden on single or multi family homes would actually be reduced. An example is this model of Spokane: https://landeconomics.org/reports/spokane-report#:~:text=sin...
And a lot of the time, it’s those truly rich people who own those vacant/underdeveloped parcels in downtowns.
What would happen if a state just let its government fail? Close all the offices, fire all the the people who spend the day thinking about money,laws, email, and other ways to justify their jobs? Just pay the police from local tax. Oh wait, local taxes already pay for the police. We have too many layers of government. Garbage collection, fire departments, public works - all are locally administered. Why do we need a state layer?
The government is simply the gang that won (vs the other gangs).
If the government fails, then you briefly get anarchy and violence until people organize into groups and use more violence to quash the anarchists. This repeats until there is only one group remaining, and that group is the government going forward.
Georgism aside, the theory that very rich individuals will move if targeted for taxation tends to be _mostly_ false, when it's actually tried (though it's true for companies to a large extent).
If this were to go ahead, how many people would actually move? "I'm going to uproot my life to avoid paying an amount that's kinda immaterial to me" would be mildly weird.
California, more so than other places, have a lot of paper billionaires living a middle-class lifestyle because these billionaires are tech founders that hold illiquid ownership in their own startups.
I am less worried about the one time influx of tax revenue than I am about this state’s wanton inability to balance a budget or show a modicum of fiscal restraint.
I think the author may be right about multiple points but I think it doesn't matter? This is one of those, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good situations. A state-level, one-time wealth tax _is_ something that billionaires can run away from. And this law seeking to apply to people who lived in the state _before its passing_ seems structurally sketchy. This article has some fair concerns.
But we have a one-time billionaire's tax proposal on the upcoming ballot, and we don't have an LVT proposal on the ballot. Saying that the Billionaire's tax will be less effective than promoters say maybe true -- but we're definitely going to get exactly $0 from a statewide LVT for 2026. If the Center for Land Economics gets an LVT on the ballot in a future year, I would strongly consider voting for it -- but that's not on its own a reason to not do the Billionaire Tax this year.
What _would_ be a convincing piece of info, and which no one knows, is what the long-term impacts of a one-time wealth tax are. E.g. Zuckerberg is moving his residence to FL but Meta isn't going to stop employing Californians. And if the state is _credible_ in saying it's a one-time tax, will the billionaires who fled come back after it's done?
From what I can tell the residency change for a billionaire is about how often you fly to your various homes. Zuckerberg I think hasn't gotten rid of his Palo Alto or Lake Tahoe property, he just added a FL house and will have a cap on how many days per year he's in CA right? This isn't like a normal person with 1 house relocating.
"None of this is really about billionaires; California reaches for exotic taxes because its normal one has been broken since 1978."
The author then goes on to talk about CA's property taxes ... but LAND HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE BILLIONAIRE'S FORTUNES!!! Zuckerberg did make his money trading property, he made it through companies.
Nothing about California's property tax decisions have anything to do with 99.9% of Zuck's (and others') wealth not being taxed!
> Nothing about California's property tax decisions have anything to do with 99.9% of Zuck's (and others') wealth not being taxed!
That may be true, but you appear to have missed the part of the sentence you quoted that came after the semicolon:
California reaches for exotic taxes because its normal one has been broken since 1978.
Property taxes make up a large portion of many states' tax income. 1978's Proposition 13 made it so that California is -more or less- unable to tax the actual value of any property in the state. Wealthy people who've held on to property for decades get to borrow against the "market value" of that property, but the value of the property used to calculate the tax owed to the state only increases at a maximum of something like 2% per year. This means that you'll see long-term landlords (and holding companies) getting the financial benefits of a -say- multi-million dollar property, but the state only gets the tax of -say- a multi-deca-thousand dollar property.
Because of Proposition 13, property tax increases in California will affect an extremely tiny slice of landowners, [0] so it must turn to other mechanisms when it needs more tax revenue.
In regards to private "wealth creation", it turns out that money is fungible and you absolutely can built a bunch of wealth off of a mortgage if the "market" value of that property has increased by a huge amount, but the costs of holding that property haven't increased much at all.
[0] This doesn't contradict what I've said, I've just left out some details. A quick summary:
Ignoring a few exceptions, when a property changes ownership its property tax is adjusted to be based on the current "market" rate. When nontrivial improvements are made to a property, the property tax is adjusted to account for the "market" value of only those improvements. [1] Some "clever" people have been known to get around the "property changes hands" trigger by making the property be owned by a company and distributing private shares in that company. Want out? Get rid of all of your shares. Want in? Get shares from someone who already has them, or maybe convince those who are in to make more for you. The property is still owned by the company, so its tax is not adjusted.
[1] It's important to note that repairs are not improvements. It's also important to note that the government can choose to ignore all of these rate-reset rules whenever it wants, as it did when all those extremely wealthy people in LA got their houses burned down in that big wildfire that hit LA.
So what? The goal is to fund the government. You may want to stick it to Zuck and other billionaires (and I admit, there's appeal to that), but if fixing our broken property tax system will fund the government (without causing mass displacement as people's property taxes go up), then we should do that. It's a fix to a structural problem, and a fix that will be durable and be reliable in the future.
Taxing billionaires is not a durable fix to budget deficits. The article very clearly explains why this is the case.
If the tax is calculated based on residency at the time it was earned or granted rather than when it vested or was sold then it doesn’t matter if they leave.
I don't live in California but the article mentioned Proposition 13 which capped property tax rates and the reassessment is only when the property changes ownership?
Is that right?
That seems unfair to people who recently moved compared to the people that stay in their house for decades.
Reading more it looks like California created alternative types of property taxes like Mello-Roos.
In my state we used to have property tax values reassessed every 8 years, then they changed it to every 4 years. But my bill goes up every year. I started off paying about $2000 25 years ago and now it is about $5000 but my property value has also increased about 3X
It seems like if you just taxed an ordinary house at a percentage and you taxed a billionaire's huge house at the same percentage that you would get more money from the billionaire without needing to create special laws and special taxes.
Yup, Prop 13 is a mess and is a big part of why housing in CA is broken. But it's politically toxic to even mention substantial reform, let alone abolishing it or even just phasing it out over time.
The article contains significant inaccuracies. Individuals in the lower and middle economic strata need not advocate for the interests of billionaires or those with assets exceeding $100 million; these individuals have already benefited disproportionately.
Over the past 50 to 60 years, wealth concentration in many Western nations—coupled with the relocation of jobs to East Asia—has primarily favored the upper class rather than the middle class. Similarly on a different battlefield, Brexit has not served the majority of the United Kingdom’s working class population the average citizen has experienced a decline in wealth. In Great Britain, most residents did not benefit from North Sea oil revenues, which were largely directed toward affluent groups—a contrast to Norway’s more unselfish. forward thinking approach of establishing a sovereign wealth fund which benefit it all to the consternation of the wealthy well connected conservative class within Norway.
Remarkably, adherence to sound financial principles—living within one’s means, settling obligations, and saving—can enhance long-term economic stability across all income levels and even at the governmental level.
Much like Proposition 13, voting in favor of Proposition 40 is a straightforward choice. Historically and currently, western political leaders have failed to act in the best interest of the majority usually, they have to be dragged along kicking, and scratching.
It shall be interesting will the middle and lower end carry water for the wealthy again and vote against their interests to save the lucky 214 billionaires in California, that’s right you heard it right, 214 out of 40 million people…
The billionaires won’t be going anywhere. There’s a reason why the West Coast, California, and Oregon are what they are, when compared to the rest of the United States outside the Northeast, climate, higher education, better business opportunities, better political climate for the population, particularly if you look a little different or have a different religion in comparison to a large part of the United States, particularly after 1945.
Brexit is such an odd case, that it seems not worth comparing.
It's so tied into British classicism, and the generally pathetic nature of the middle class English, that trying to extend the results outside of the UK produces absurd ideas.
Essentially the British people took a (not particularly economically motivated) deal to reduce migration, at the cost of economic connection to the EU.
This upset the UK political class greatly, so much of the following policy was about punishing the population, rather than long term economics.
The land value tax is a good idea, but the pure conceptualization that die-hard Georgists have, in which it's a flat tax, doesn't seem in the same line as the billionaire tax. What'd like is just a (drastically) revised version of Prop 13 in which those protections apply only to the first $N of property value. We can effectively tax the real estate of billionaires without having to tax everyone else. I would like to see taxes on luxury properties approach 100% of the property value, to make it extremely painful for anyone to own such properties, and encourage them to be split up among smaller owners.
Feel free to look up the percentage of the CA tax base by 50th, 90th, 95th, 99th and 99.9th percentiles. The myth that billionaires don’t pay their fair share is just that - a myth. A lot of lower income people don’t pay any tax at all and have their state services entirely subsidized by the rest, the vast majority of which is paid by the richest 5%. Every time I see a call to tax the billionaires I know I’m hearing from a fool too partisan to look at really simple to understand numbers.
The effectiveness of other taxes aside, the argument that billionaires will leave if taxed at a higher rate isn't compelling.
Billionaires are not struggling to meet their expenses. If you raise their taxes, they aren't suddenly unable to afford things. They don't need to change their behavior just to get by. A carbon tax forces average people to drive less, but doesn't affect billionaires at all.
Billionaires live where they want to because they can afford to. They're not going to let themselves be chased from jurisdiction to jurisdiction because of numbers that have zero impact on their daily lives. That's what happens to poor people. If California raises taxes on billionaires, very few will actually leave. They're where they want to be and they can afford to stay there. What's the point of having a really big number in your bank account if you have to move to the middle of nowhere in Alabama to keep it from falling just a little?
----------
Edit: Yes, some billionaires have changed their tax residency, but not necessarily their physical location. They likely still own properties in California and can likely be found on them rather a lot. This is evasion, in spirit if not law. Taxing land is just one way to make them pay. Others should be pursued as well. The argument that we shouldn't tax billionaires because billionaires are good at not paying taxes is complete hogwash.
It may not be logical, but money effectively turns into a scoreboard at a certain point. The ultra-wealthy care whether they show up to the yacht club in a 100m or 150m yacht.
That individuals won’t optimize their wealth beyond $100m, $1b, or really any number just doesn’t square with observable behavior.
Starting a business self-selects for people that desire money (over other benefits).
The purpose of a business is money (otherwise you start a hobby or charity or something non-businessey).
Being very successful at business is a selection bias for people that are highly competitive at chasing money.
There's a bunch of traits in very wealthy self-made people due to the filter they have run through.
Tax too much, and we kill the golden geese of the economy. Examples abound around the world of crappy economies that can't afford good socialist stuff because they've demotivated the rain makers.
If you are rich, you want to be in places where you can enjoy and show off and well be rich. Living in some third world or second world hell hole or some deep red state with no mountains or beaches where you can’t drive and enjoy your fancy car just would not be fun it’s basically the reason why you wouldn’t want to be rich from America and live in Mexico or further south.
Not to mention your businesses need to be in relatively affluent areas where most people can afford your products and from an educational standpoint, most of the better schools are on the west coast or are in the upper east coast.
Worry. about the other 99% maybe more precise, the other lower 90% of American Society.
The article claims that 6 individually named billionaires already left (presumably recently), and another is likely to leave if he loses his court challenge.
This is a strange argument coming from the side of the argument that usually talks about billionaires being greedy and doing anything to make the numbers go up even though they can't feel the difference.
They can certainly afford it but they obviously like their money to stay theirs and like getting more of it, not less.
> the argument that billionaires will leave if taxed at a higher rate isn't compelling
I agree with this. California’s climate and culture will keep many a billionaire within tax nexus reach of the state. Of course, this isn’t a strategy every locale can pursue, but I don’t see a reason for California not to exploit its advantages.
> The land value tax can’t be dodged by leaving nor can it be passed on to renters
Of course you can. You just charge more. Yeah the market dynamics can put a cap on it but the Bay Area mints millionaires like there’s no tomorrow. They can pay.
But I think the purpose of a wealth tax is precisely to get rid of greedy billionaires.
So if they vote with their feet and leave, then that's an even better outcome. Now they can't manipulate the government anymore. They can go manipulate and continue extracting wealth from some other place.
Yeah because they got billions by extracting it like mosquitos. It came mostly from your billions I assume. Without that it would have been all yours. Clearly you have zero concept of how an economy works.
You know the extraction is more like 10000-to-1 than 1-to-1.
But in essence I do believe that I (and thousands of others) could have had at least $100k more net worth if they hadn't monopolized all user-acquisition channels and if they hadn't helped bring about the many laws and regulations which made this possible.
I have no ill feelings towards them but I just don't want them in my state competing against me for limited resources using money which they acquired through an unjust scheme which I was coercively made a part of but which I never agreed to and have been protesting for almost a decade (on deaf ears).
It's not personal or even saying anything negative about their character or abilities. From my perspective it's just pure self-preservation. They either need to contribute more tax to make up for the injustice or they leave.
When they sell their assets, it makes those assets more affordable for the rest of us. So any forced sale is good for society. I don't see any issues with it. We were/are forced to prop up their stocks through government contracts, grants and regulatory monopolies... So they should contribute something on their end too.
And I don't care about the "jobs they create" - They created jobs for my competitors to get easy money in cushy jobs. I want those jobs gone too! I don't want FAANG employees bidding up house prices in my area.
I only want to compete against people who are playing by the same rules as me! I don't want to compete against people who can rewrite the rulebook as we go, to suit them.
Well Mamdani's pied-a-tierre tax was specifically a real estate tax, levied on the real estate of people who don't have residency in the city. It's a marginal tax in the grand scheme of things, but unlike the billionaire wealth tax, it actually works, because the real estate can't move. And the owners can't just threaten to leave because they've already left, that's why the tax hits them.
Not sure if anyone could get such a policy change made given that California politics is now just "Whatever the California Democratic Party Wants" and they are very rigid in the ideas they accept.
But I think the proposal being discussed is 1000% more consistent with the principles of a free, non-communist society than the crazy "wealth tax," which sets the precedent that if the government thinks you have "too much" stuff, they can just declare that to be so, and come and take it. Given that the people in charge of drawing the line between "so rich that we need to take your stuff" and "not that rich" will be the same people who have blown up the state budget, I don't see why anyone would trust them.
(No, I'm not Zuck's sock puppet account -- I expect it won't be my turn for "wealth" confiscation for at least 5 years, worst case.)
You’re just carrying water for him. Zuckerberg is a winner. Zuckerberg and the other 214 billionaires in California will be fine you don’t have to suck up to them they’ll be ok a billion times over.
wealth taxes are from the old roman republic. the wealthy showed off their worth to each other by how much they could pay in taxes.
its not particularly crazy and is far older than communism or socialism which have the much more straightforward setup of seizing the means of production rather than taxing it.
however, it didnt stop the ultrawealthy from seizing power for themselves
As a rather economic left European person I think this:
Last week California certified a Billionaire Wealth Tax for the November ballot: a 5 percent one-time levy on the state’s billionaires, paid out over five years, to raise about $20 billion a year for health care, food aid, and schools after federal cuts
Is just flat out crazy.
To pretend that politicians who are in a perpetual political battle for short-term survival will somehow use this weapon of mass financing responsibly and only once it comically absurd.
1. If wealth was only motivated by taxes and was going to leave, it would've left already. Fact is, billionaires don't want to live in Tennessee;
2. Nobody is doing the right thing to tackle any of this, including California.
The article mentions California has land and that's the key point. Unfortunately, California homeowners have been coopted into voting against their own interests to raise property values. If the house you bought in SF in 1975 for $80,000 is now worth $3M, you still only own 1 housing unit's worth of wealth. And that housing cost is an input into everything you need to buy because all the workers required for those things have to be paid high enough to pay those exorbitant rents.
Let me repeat that: high housing costs are an input into everything that you buy.
So what needs to happen? We need to stop treating housing as a speculative asset. It's simply stealing from the next generation. Worse, it's diverting investment capital from productive output because land has become the asset with the best tax treatment, highest returns and most government protections. So what does this look like?
1. Some form of land value tax. The higher the value goes, the higher the taxes go. You raise the rent and your land value taxes go up because it's more valuable;
2. Punitively tax land hoarding including second homes. We could give discounted rates to primary residences of state residents. Nobody else should get a discount. This would mean repealing Prop 13 and that's never going to happen. As an example of this, I'll bring up Prop 19. In CA you can inherit a preferential property tax rate. Prop 19 proposed to limit this to only one property could inherit this preferential rate and it barely passed (51% IIRC). Do we think that 49% of California voters have multiple properties that have property tax rates set 40+ years ago? Of course they don't. It's an example of how people vote against their own interests;
3. Part of what sold Prop 13 originally was the idea of pushing seniors out of their homes with property taxes. Well, that gave Disneyland a tax rate that was set in the 1960s. California should do what Texas does: you can defer your property taxes until you die if you're a senior but there's no capped property tax rates like incumbent SF residents have and no inherited preferential property tax rates;
4. Wind back the preferential collateralization of property for mortgage debt over time. Residential property lending now dominates bank lending and earnings. It's significantly harder to get finance for any form of productive output;
5. Wind back over time preferential tax treatment for home ownership.
Do I think any of this will happen? No.
Oh, one of the worst things to do is transaction taxes, often called stamp duty. This is where you pay a percentage of the value on purchase. This really hurts mobility. I guess it's fine if it's only on the luxury end of the market (CA's is at $5M+?) but it's not a good idea regardless.
The other part of this is to provide social housing like Vienna. The government should be a significant supplier of affordable quality housing.
> We need to stop treating housing as a speculative asset.
This kind of assumes the only reason a house appreciates in value is because people are "treating it as an asset" rather than "the house I bought 30 years ago in the middle of nowhere is now smack dab in the middle of a very desirable area." At that point it's simple supply and demand, not some homeowner being greedy.
> The higher the value goes, the higher the taxes go. You raise the rent and your land value taxes go up because it's more valuable
This makes the fatal assumption that just because a house is worth dramatically more than what you paid for it many years ago that your income must have risen just as dramatically. "Oh well, too bad, sell your house and deal with it." Maybe people kind of like living where they've put down roots and don't want to be punished for something outside of their control? Any proposal that boils down to "pay more or fuck off" is not going to go over very well.
> We need to stop treating housing as a speculative asset.
Something I've been yelling from the rooftops.
Housing can either be affordable, or it can be an investment that's bought, rented, and sold for the sole purpose of profit. It's not possible for it to be both.
People expect their house to appreciate faster than inflation, but all that does is rob the next generation of home ownership.
And now, when mom and dad downsize after the kids move out, rather than selling the house or pass it to one of their children, they rent it out.
Alternatively, they keep the house, but get either a reverse mortgage or a cash out refi to survive until they die, at which point their kids can't afford to buy it from the bank.
Increase taxes on rental income on single-family homes and double the property tax on vacant homes to discourage hoarding.
Encourage building upwards to increase housing supply. This can be done via tax breaks or subsidies. Especially encourage multi-use buildings to make cities walkable. Stores/restaurants at the street level with apartments above.
Ditch or reform/restrict the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. Remove barriers to building more housing. Other stuff, but you can do a web search, I'm sure.
California is full of people who do not understand how investment works and want it gone. This is progress missing from progressive. It is the social missing from socialist. Ists and ivs with nothing, merely a pack of stupid ideas. The residual is reality: no-teeth, drug-induced stupor sleeping in street squalor and their rent-seeking enablers cozying up to the tax authorities.
California already has a property tax, about half of which is based on the land value, and the other half on the structure on the land. So this is not some brilliant idea, just a renaming of what we already have.
If the author is suggesting to repeal Prop 13, that is also not a new idea, and has been discussed for decades. Good luck.
Which economic system are you critiquing? I would tend to agree, since I think wealth taxes amount to a breaking of the 8th and 10th commandments. But I also think some would argue that the consumerism (envy) that often drives capitalism is a form of covetousness. I think the counter argument is that capitalism does not require consumerism, and that consumerism (envy) can appear in any economic system.
not good believer in christ would ever participate, when jesus made it clear you are supposed to freely give away everything you own to the poorest among us
It's covetous to expect someone else to give you a part of something they worked for and you contributed nothing to. One of the basic 10 commandments is not to covet your neighbour's property; envy is a sin.
But, you're right, when someone suggests that we poor are just envious of the ultra-rich and that is why we want to tax them, I assume that they think we ought to look elsewhere than the wealthy for taxes. Which kind of suggests tilting toward a more regressive, less progressive tax system.
Introduce a ballot measure that removes the allowances of Prop 13 on retail real-estate and I suspect you'll find it's not political suicide at all.
I think the idea is that if the market demand is such that it allows them to raise rents, they'd already have done it, whether or not expenses justify it.
Did tariffs raise prices? Or did prices stay the same because "if the market demand is such that it allows them to raise [prices], they'd already have done it"?
It won't grind to a halt. The owner will sell, because they can't make the business work.
At what price will they sell? At whatever price a buyer who thinks will make it work. And by "work" there are many definitions, from continuing operation at current rents, to building more units on the land so that it generates enough income to pay the tax.
Land value taxes shift tax burden away from productive use of land and on to unproductive uses of land. The people who pay more are land speculators and those with empty lots, and the people who pay less are those productively using the land, which is 99% of homeowners and businesses.
So what happens then? High enough property taxes could in theory result in a situation like Detroit where the land value drops so low that properties are abandoned, with no buyers. But that seems unlikely in California?
At less of an extreme, there are still buyers, but they offer less money so they can still make a profit. So, the property tax basically comes out of land values. The current owners lose money on the property. It's the opposite of the windfall profits that California property owners have gotten from rising land values, taken out of whoever owns the land now.
For the next owner, their mortgage expense is lower, their property tax is higher, and maybe rents and profit margins stay about the same.
Notice that if the demand is there, falling land values doesn't result in lower rents. If your complaint is that the rent is too damn high, higher property taxes won't fix it. Only more housing does that.
I'm a bit skeptical that it would really work out that way. In California, we can have the odd situation where the current owner pays low property taxes, the new owner will pay higher property taxes, and yet property prices get bid up, and whoever buys it has to pay both more property tax and a higher mortgage. But they can still afford it, because there are a lot of rich people out there.
If the assessed land value is actually correct, then someone can make that land work profitably, by definition. That might mean bulldozing a single-family home and building a 4-unit building, for example, but it's doable.
If the assessed land value is incorrect, then that would need to be fixed.
Yeah, that's unlikely. There are certain classes of renters it can't be passed on to during their rental term, but I'm guessing it can and likely would in general.
People can also sell their land/homes and move. It's less liquid than other assets, but less doesn't mean people won't sell/leave.
In Massachusetts it’s legal to pass on real property tax increases during the term of a residential lease, provided the lease contains specific clauses. (Most leases do, as a result.) And most commercial leases are triple-net, meaning the tenant is also on the hook for increases.
I would be surprised if most land consumption taxes (whether structured as property or land) would not get directly passed through to the beneficial consumers of that land quite quickly, or for their privilege to consume that land to be terminated/non-renewed at the expiration.
One of the benefits of a land value tax is that it has zero dead weight loss: because there's a fixed supply of land, the tax won't cause less of it to be around, and you don't lose out on the beneficial transactions that property tax can prevent.
There are several key benefits and I like the theoretical soundness.
My primary concern is that there are generally no market comparables for undeveloped land in developed areas.
If I believe it’s over-stated, I can appeal my property tax assessment by using comparables for nearby developed property. There is no equivalent market-based process for land values alone.
This is a reasonable and common concern, and one I shared until I looked into it in fine detail. Turns out it's far easier to estimate the value of land that things sit on than the entire property value, and most of the country actually operates on continually updated estimates of total property value rather than just land.
There's several anchoring sales nearby, you can regress out from all sales, etc. etc. And it's smoothly varying for nearby parcels, with very little change!
I will read that link later tonight (thanks!), but this still seems like a system where a particular property owner could be “targeted” (politically or economically) and suffer without reasonable legal recourse.
It's actually much harder to target a particular owner, because it's based only on land area, and the value of land in a general area! Property taxes are much much more susceptible to targeting as individual properties are much more variable and there's far more judgement about individual buildings and the potential value of a building.
Great! I’ll take all the oceanfront/riverfront land in an area and all the land immediately adjacent to major metro stops, please.
This highly local variation in land value does not seem to be adequately addressed n the California link above either (other than “The estimation runs at the level of each property category within each California county or census tract, using parcel-level data”, which does not seem fine-grained enough to cover waterfront property).
Surely the land value overlooking La Jolla or Malibu is worth far more than the lots just one block back. And those lots are likely to have more expensive improvements on them in any taxation system, but at least in a property taxation system there is a direct market reference to come back to rather than just an assessor’s judgment.
How much is the dirt at 28824 Cliffside Dr, Malibu worth? $5M? $25M? $50M? $75M? What does the census-tract level estimate come up with? How does that compare to 28867 Cliffside with an ever-so slightly larger lot, both in Census tract 8004.12?
In California some percentage of certain developments need to be rental controlled, so those are exempt from increases for those lower income folks, but I'm sure the difference would be spread out among everyone who isn't rent controlled.
I co-wrote the article. Neither Greg nor I are single taxers. We think LVT is better than a poorly designed wealth tax, but we are not single tax maximalists.
I hope we agree that we need more taxes, it doesn't matter if they are taxes on billionaires, taxes on property, taxes on sales, taxes on crypto, or taxes on the poor. Without taxes we can't have a civilized society.
The number of different taxes is constantly increasing, obfuscating the total tax burden, and making democratic accountability almost impossible. Additionally, tax collections are already at a historical high, while government deficits world-wide are also at record levels, with services on the decline, and no realistic prospect of balancing budgets. This is true for most western countries.
Given the current situation, I do not agree that "we need more taxes", but would welcome your clarifying exactly what you mean.
For a long time I agreed with you, but seeing how the tax money is spent I cannot agree any longer. In most cases government is no longer even spending the money itself, instead it is giving the money to NGOs.
I would much rather see people keep more of their dollars and use them to 'vote' for the products and services that benefit them most, via their purchases.
It would be interesting to run the counter-factual on the EPA. Lawsuits around pollution were already increasing significantly prior to the EPA even company vs. company.
Would the resources have been better spent on a more efficient legal system, then leverage that?
Taxes aren’t 0 right now, nor particularly close for anyone being taxed. Your statement supports taxes as a concept at all, but what’s the specific argument that they must be more than they are today?
I think we should start with changing taxes on corporations/companies, specifically being able to indefinitely write off expenses against income regardless of size/etc...
Most companies take profit eventually, but if it's possible for a company to decide to never take profit and grow/acquire perpetually without paying any taxes on gross income, that's a problem.
That'd be like individuals being able to deduct living expenses and having uncapped pre-tax 401k contributions.
The ratio of the economy that gets collected as taxes has only gone up over time. Do you have an idea for how much should be collected as some ideal ratio? At what point do the effects of taxation become counterproductive?
Well, the general economic consensus is that for income taxes, the revenue-maximizing peak of the Laffer curve is around 65-70% [1]. Revenue maximization isn't necessarily the right primary goal, though.
Same back at you. Clearly you think they’re too high. So what is the correct ratio?
The straightforward answer is there is no correct ratio. The best tax regime is the one that allows for sufficient funding of necessary and desired services and long-term economic investment while also balancing wealth creation with wealth inequality. That number isn’t fixed and it’s clear that it shouldn’t be evenly borne by the population as a whole.
I made no such claim. I simply asked someone who said that we can all agree taxes must go up to what level they were referring to and how they chose the number. If there is no fixed ratio such as you say, then their claim is clearly false.
Sorry, but this is bullshit. You’re not fooling anyone. If you think the GP needs to provide an ideal tax ratio, so do you. You don’t get to opt out and pretend you’re above it all.
You don’t understand the natural order of things: productivity for you(the worker constantly told to do more), not for me(governments of all sizes, middle management & execs, dumb owners).
If the government keeps doing this, land owners will blow their wealth on the only things that government can't easily tax: blow and hookers.
But leave it to the ineptitude of California liberal politicians to always find a way to steal from the citizens that have the ability to produce and save, in order to transfer the wealth to illegals, politicians friends, druggies, and foreign powers.
If you're participating in a conversation between adults in the 21st century, yeah. We've got a word for it, even if it's like garlic to the private equity vampires on this website.
“ Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Peter Thiel, Don Hankey, Travis Kalanick, and Steven Spielberg, worth roughly $540 billion combined — had already moved their tax residency out of state before the measure”
Imagine being worth billions USD and rather than being a part of the solution to support the state that helped build your wealth, you spend your money to just get around paying your small share.
It is trivial for the wealthy to buy another house elsewhere and “move” their primary residence.
The greatest feat that Mao achieved was to take the land that had been tightly gripped by generations upon generations of owners and to shake up the distribution of it so that the land could produce again. People naturally want to work the land, but you end up with suboptimal inertia because owners just end up letting it sit fallow if it doesn't immediately return. It's how you turn a billion serfs into a billion entrepreneurs.
We're already way past the point where a creative cocktail of 10 different progressive taxation schemes could feasibly fix the root of the problem, and you feel this especially if you were born after the year 2000. You're more likely to see results if you pick up a red scarf than if you pass a higher wealth tax, sales tax, land tax, consumption tax, estate tax...
The famine is unrelated to the land distribution but also the farm land distribution didn't last. They changed course and put the land into collectives and it is still in collectives today so the famine cannot be blamed on collectives.
My understanding is the famine was essentially the middle managers of these collectives over stating yields and being too afraid to admit their lies. To maintain the lie, they shipped off food while the farmers starved.
> They changed course and put the land into collectives and it is still in collectives today so the famine cannot be blamed on collectives.
Painting it as if Mao era collectives are the same as the state quotas that exist today is highly misleading. The HRS was 1979:
"The household responsibility system replaced collective farming." [1]
Broadly speaking, the collectives can and should be blamed for the famine, just as in the Ukraine. Getting into the weeds on the specific mechanisms is fine, but using it to undermine the broader lesson is apologetics.
Famine along the yellow river and yangtze river has been happening for thousands of years across all dynasties, its specifically what land distribution was meant to fix, and since 1960s there hasn't been a famine since. My parents and grandparents lived through it and left cities to work in countryside fields during the cultural revolution. You tell me how the famine fits in and I'll let you know if you're accurate or not.
I think not. Your framing thus far is so wildly inaccurate that I believe this is a propaganda account, and hesitate to engage further. But in case any not familiar with the history read this in passing, I will leave a reference to an actually reputable source:
"Mao’s violent collectivization and forced labour campaigns during China’s Great Leap Forward (1958–1962) led to as many as 45 million deaths in what is widely regarded as the worst famine in human history." [1]
those who advocate for land value tax are usually advocating for single/minimal types of taxes (and, in fact, against sales and income taxes) rather than a cocktail of them. "Single Tax" predominantly refers to a single land value tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_tax
My point is that a single land value tax would have the same effect as piecemeal improvements to current tax portfolio - none of it would fix the inertia already priced and baked into the system.
> A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous."
> To put it bluntly, it is necessary to create terror for a while in every rural area."
Let's not glamourize the Mao's land reforms. It required the killing of 1-2 million people. Even then, the collectivization was a massive failure - not only did the peasantry not get to enjoy the benefits of land reform, a further 15 million people would die from the resulting famine.
The deep irony is that Taiwan was actually able to do the same reform but with much better outcomes, with much less loss of life or political violence.
Taiwan did not have anywhere near the land distribution occur under CKS/CCK, nor the same veracity of landlord clique ownership. And, you're further wrong in that a big part of white terror was specifically due to 外省人 owners of factories and farms, from land stolen from the aborigines. The white terror wasn't by any means less violent and senseless than cultural revolution.
Land, as apposed to the property on it, is raw nature. If we view raw nature as a common inheritance of mankind, then paying a tax on land is how the exclusionary use of it, balances with the common interest in it.
Economist Henry George in the 1800's, pointed out that taxing land, but not the property on it, incentivizes efficient use of land, because holding land for its passive (parasitic) return even when underused, becomes unprofitable when the land is taxed in proportion to the value it can enable.
And in turn, only taxing land, not property, incentivizes increased development, as higher property investment amortizes land tax against higher returns.
Greater investment in housing being just one way land tax, without property tax, incentives greater productive use.
So many things align for higher growth in ways that more evenly benefit everyone. But our relationship with land is over-complicated, and that is both the reason for change, but the reason change is so hard.
Small attempts have failed, but then, for the rich who can hold land and reap growth in value that outpaces the taxes they pay on it, that remains another inefficient/negative-externality, that pays off for them.
The hard part is that we've structured life such that you are on a fixed income at the end of your life in no position really to deal with inflation. At least when you are still working, in theory at least your wages will go up with inflation. This is really why prop 13 happened to pass at all: the idea of being displaced at the end of your life out of the home you already paid off due to market forces you aren't even a participant in is actually widely unpopular even if it makes better economic sense.
> the idea of being displaced at the end of your life out of the home
I would argue that this is unpopular not only amongst retirees but everyone. And it would have tons of negative side effects.
Why would I fix up my house to look nice, if I’ll be displaced? Why would I invest in my child’s local school system, if we could be displaced? Why would I do any community outreach or support, or get involved in local politics? How can banks underwrite loans if the affordability can fluctuate wildly? Look at the life of people who live in mobile homes and trailer parks - they essentially rent the land, and it’s oppressive because they can’t afford to move (actually moving or repurposing land is hard) but their cost to stay is unpredictable.
The only people this is appealing for are people who fancy themselves analytically minded economists with no interest in the practical humanity of the people living there and renters hoping to finally do the displacing for their own affordability.
> The only people this is appealing for are people who fancy themselves analytically minded economists with no interest in the practical humanity
Most states in the US do not have Prop-13-like laws and get by just fine. For the few states that do, they are less restrictive taxation-wise than California's.
Prop 13 has completely distorted the housing market; it is, perhaps unintuitively, a co-cause of CA's housing unaffordability issues. (Prop 13 discourages new development, and is an enabler of housing NIMBYism.)
We of course shouldn't just abolish Prop 13 overnight, or lots of people will get displaced, also overnight. But we should absolutely reform it and phase it out over time, while building more housing, as fast as we can (something that will be a little bit easier to do as all the NIMBYs realize that if they keep shooting down housing projects, their property taxes are gonna go up a ton).
Many states have senior property tax reduction programs. It doesn't go as far as prop 13, but had similar goals.
Prop 13 isn't for seniors, though, it's for all ages. And the heirs inherit the tax base. A senior-only prop 13 would reset at death, so at least it's limited in duration.
The effects have got to be pretty intense.
‘We need new shit! Let’s raise taxes.’ While not having to pay them yourself.
A common one I've seen is that for the elderly, property taxes are deferred until they die and are then deducted from their estate (including a sale of the house).
IMO this is a much more fair system than just saying "lol no taxes on the elderly."
Most states also rely on sales taxes and various fees, and assign limited property taxes. A Georgist land value tax would have much greater effects than the current tax regimes.
> Prop 13 has completely distorted the housing market; it is, perhaps unintuitively, a co-cause of CA's housing unaffordability issues. (Prop 13 discourages new development, and is an enabler of housing NIMBYism.)
I have heard this assertion with no proof or backing data a lot. There is an assumption but no explanation how kicking long time residents out of their homes due to tax pressure is a benefit to the community, or real estate market prices. Real estate agents and other service companies might benefit from more transactions.
There is also usually no mention that the main problem of Prop 13 is that it applies to commercial and industrial properties, not just individual primary residences. Individuals have a limited impact scoped to their life, but tax implications applied to long term corporations is what has an outsized effect.
The nonexistence of Prop 13 in other states should be pretty clear evidence that there are more options besides Prop 13 or kicking out lifelong residents.
California already has property tax deferment.
Sure, Florida doesn't have prop 13 and experiences 10x the property tax forclosure rate of California. It's not a desirable thing.
Florida also doesn't have swarms of homeless people like CA does.
I find that forcing the elderly out of multimillion dollar homes and into apartments or even smaller homes is infinitely preferable to the human catastrophe plainly obvious on the streets of LA and SF.
> There is an assumption but no explanation how kicking long time residents out of their homes due to tax pressure is a benefit to the community
One benefit of an equal property taxation system would b having workers close to the city centres where they work rather retirees.
Prop 13 is a bit of a nothingburger anyhow when you consider median homeownership period in CA is only like 2 years longer than national average, rather than the myth that seems to be perpetuated of every home being a 40+ year hold paying a couple dollars in property taxes. And when that home is sold the tax assessment of course goes right back to market rate, and boy that is substantial when you have what would be a 450k home outside of Boston go for 2.1m with a 1% tax. 21 thousand a year off a single 50ft wide lot is no slouch in terms of tax revenue.
> And when that home is sold the tax assessment of course goes right back to market rate, and boy that is substantial when you have what would be a 450k home outside of Boston go for 2.1m with a 1% tax. 21 thousand a year off a single 50ft wide lot is no slouch in terms of tax revenue.
The problem is all the tax revenue being lost at the municipality level for decades. National tenure average is ~12 years. Los Angeles is 20 years, SF is 16.5 and SJC is in between. It clearly has a meaningful effect, it's just harder to buy into the market and keep the home over a long period of time.
San Francisco receives over $3,000 per capita in property tax revenue alone. Dallas receives about $1,200 per capita. NYC is less than $1,000, though I gather NYC has their own property tax issues.
And California has an income tax, whereas Texas doesn't.
Prop 13 has it's problems, but I don't think they're as significant as the rhetoric claims. It makes for a great excuse, though. Politicians can blame Prop 13 for why they can't spend as much on services as people demand, and now it's become the common wisdom--but for Prop 13 California could afford to spend much more than it does, and the housing affordability crisis would end, too. It's just wishful thinking.
I remember when Prop 13 was on the ballot. The newspaper reported that if it passed, it would eviscerate the police and fire budgets. It passed, and nothing happened to the budgets.
I don’t think the housing affordability crisis ends and I don’t think that’s the right way to model it. SF has one of, if not the highest, $/sq ft in the US. And prop 13 is suppressing it - estimates indicate that property taxes revenues would double meaning that 2.5k/person would become 5k.
And remember that that 2.5k/person is only for residential properties. commercial properties still fall under prop 13 and that’s about 50-60 of the other tax. So a full repeal would make it closer to 10k/person instead of the current 5k.
I agree the story on rents and home prices would be unclear because ultimately the people might move and just rent out their homes with property taxes baling into the new rental price.
What would they even do with $10k per person? That seems insanely high.
Also seems unlikely. It might depress housing prices and act as a natural counterbalance (but then rents and Col drops too). I think it’s really hard to model.
I don't think housing costs would drop that much, if at all. What matters is the monthly mortgage payment. Property prices drop when property taxes go up, but mortgage payments tends to stay similar.
In one sense that sounds like free money for the state. However, home equity constitutes the largest share of savings for people, and that's more true the lower down the income ladder you go. So you're taking money out of the working- and middle-class. In some circles home equity is considered a poor savings vehicle, but they don't seem to consider that it's the only secured loan most people can access for leveraged investment. It's the only investment available to most people that let's them leverage capital markets the way the very wealthy can.
And FWIW, residential rents also track monthly mortgage payments, so renters aren't likely to see any difference, either. On average renters pay roughly the same amount per month they'd pay as owners, just without building any equity. I suppose they might be slightly better off after accounting for transfer payments (i.e. public services, entitlements, etc), but they'd be even better off if they could become owners rather than renters.
"I don't think housing costs would drop that much, if at all."
That all depends on if people still want to live there, or can afford it. People tend to be sensitive to taxes, especially if they don't see it improving their lives. Businesses can be sensitive to this sort of thing too. And if they leave, people may leave too. California is already at a net negative when looking at joiners vs leavers. It's mostly been lower wage workers, but in recent years middle and high earners have also been leaving. The population is the same as it was 5 years ago.
"Property prices drop when property taxes go up, but mortgage payments tends to stay similar."
That might be roughly true for a person who just purchased and the federal property tax deduction is uncapped. A retiree who is getting a break on taxes is likely to see a big increase. Not to mention if the house is paid off, then there is no mortgage that could offset it.
I’m sure they can find some things to hire McKinsey to do feasibility studies on the feasibility of doing a feasibility study.
> What would they even do with $10k per person?
Flock. We need more Flock.
> And California has an income tax, whereas Texas doesn't.
Which isn't just a few percent but around ~10% (depending on income).
Prop 13 also applies to commercial real estate.
It's not reset of you inherit, or a bunch of other bullshit exemptions.
We live in a gerontacracy. Every advantage and tax break and handout is given to the elderly and the ladder has fully been pulled up for the new generations.
They patched that with a recentish assembly bill, but they really need to patch the LLC loophole too.
Some things to keep in mind:
1. There are many states such as New Jersey or Texas that do not have Prop 13 style laws and their seniors are not suffering excessively. However housing is much more affordable for younger people in those states.
2. States that freeze property taxes have more volatility and boom/bust cycles. You are trading being shielded from tax volatility for increasing economy-wide volatilty and asset price volatility, so the gains are not as high as you think, and seniors are exposed to this volatility indirectly.
3. There are more targeted relief mechanisms available, such as deferring the tax liability until the owner dies for senior owners.
As someone from NJ...you think seniors and young people don't have affordability problems, especially wrt housing here, in the 5th most expensive state to buy a house? (California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Washington, New Jersey, in that order, according to redfin, if you're going by house cost to income ratio, NJ is 6th)
https://www.redfin.com/blog/most-expensive-states-to-buy-a-h...
> you think seniors and young people don't have affordability problems?
Of course I don't think that, which is why I didn't say it. That would be a silly thing to write. What is the advantage for you in mischaracterizing what someone wrote and then expending effort to "correct the record" for a statement no one made?
You created a strawman and then knocked it down.
What I actually said: "New Jersey or Texas that do not have Prop 13 style laws and their seniors are not suffering excessively. However housing is much more affordable for younger people in those states."
Both of these statements are demonstrably true. Let's look at the data.
So housing in NJ is more affordable than in CA.Now, let's look specifically at seniors.
In California:
In New Jersey: So we see that across the board, seniors in NJ are not cost burdened more than in California, and that in fact they are cost burdened a bit less.Therefore if your solution is to look to Prop 13 style fixes to address cost burdens for either seniors or the general population, then you are not making a data based argument, and in fact the data goes against you, because there is no excess cost burden in states without these property tax freezes.
> So housing in NJ is more affordable than in CA.
I don't know if it changes the result significantly, but remember the NJ has very high property taxes, more than double of California. So mortgage cost alone does not paint the full picture.
This is more significant for seniors, who likely have a paid-off home so their main expense is property tax. So being a fixed-income senior with a home is likely more affordable in California than in NJ. The worst thing after retirement is cost increases when you no longer have a salary that goes up with inflation.
Your exact words were "housing is much more affordable for younger people in those states", which, even by the numbers you have cited, is not correct. More affordable? Sure, we are number 5 or 6, not number 1. Much more affordable? Come on now.
And no, I don't think prop 13 style laws would be helpful, it would just create more problems, as it has in California.
Many states have prop 13 style laws, and they’re fine. The key difference is that they kick in at retirement age.
Kicking in at retirement age plus limiting it to a single owner occupied property is the key, IMO.
In California, it applies to multiple properties, you can pass it down to your children and it applies to property owned by businesses both commercial and industrial, which is absolutely crazy.
California has basically created a class of landed gentry.
You shouldn't strawman the other side. Us "people who fancy" actually understand that there are real negative side effects. But the money has to come from somewhere.
If not from land taxes, where? Would you like to double sales tax? Or increase income taxes? Every solution costs something, what does yours cost?
> actually understand that there are real negative side effects.
Everything has real negative consequences. One side does not hold the monopoly on negative side effects.
Land is not cheap to repurpose. The Georgism dream that land can be optimally used is a farce. There is significant costs to repurposing land - to make those costs worth it because of the taxes would heavily distort current society, and I think the assumption that this would be desirable compared to the status quo is unproven.
> double sales tax? Or increase income taxes?
Why not the taxes we have? Where is the presumption that taxes need to be changed at all, never mind doubled?
Even if we decide we want to raise taxes, choosing where to do so is delicate. Again, the optimal answer from an economist is not necessarily desirable from an emotional perspective of the people being governed.
> Land is not cheap to repurpose. The Georgism dream that land can be optimally used is a farce. There is significant costs to repurposing land - to make those costs worth it because of the taxes would heavily distort current society, and I think the assumption that this would be desirable compared to the status quo is unproven.
Your friction is real - and already exists.
So the bar for improvement is not no friction.
The bar is less friction, and higher productive use of land, which benefits everyone. Lowering the costs of both housing and business space, while increasing economic output.
That is was economic alignment does, it doesn't just improve one thing, or improve on a one-time or fixed percentage basis.
And less passive, underutilizing, economically-parasitic investments from the rich. (Rich passive investment in land, uses land like Bitcoin for its deflationary nature, which compounds land prices while suppressing its full productive use.
Not raises. Compounds. The more the rich passively invest in land, the more profitable land becomes to passively invest in.
The negative side effects of taxes on labor are enormous, and have distorted humanity probably more than any other factor.
Any consideration of the consequences of taxes also has to consider the consequences of the current taxation.
But taxes have and will always be a transfer of wealth from the working poor to the rich and powerful. People talking about tax reform or more effective and just systems tend to forget this. It's like the lamb having an opinion on how the wolves should share it.
Stating truisms ahead of straw manning me avoids the actual discussion. "Everything has real negative consequences." "Land is not cheap to repurpose." I never said otherwise.
You're right about my estimate being off though and it was a disservice to the discussion. An equivalent revenue from sales tax would require ~2.1%. In SF, that would move the total sales tax from 8.6% to 10.7%; in Oakland, 13.8%. A large increase would likely bend some consumer behavior (chasing sales that have feet, aka move to the informal/grey market).
> Again, the optimal answer from an economist is not necessarily desirable from an emotional perspective of the people being governed.
This is the real difference between us imo. I believe the optimal answer is based on realistic projections on revenue collected and what prevents bankruptcy. The compromise answer is what passes a vote and in fact, the bankrupt answer.
I would prefer we didn't raise taxes and instead reduce spending. But given the complexity of reducing spending and the scale of our deficit, we will have to do both. On the side of raising revenue, a land tax offers a way of taxing a wealth that cannot flee.
HOA are forclosing more than banks in some regions, it's not just trailer parks these days getting hard lessons in being the "fake owner" of your property
Existential nihilism is always possible to have regardless of how taxes are setup.
> I would argue that this is unpopular not only amongst retirees but everyone. And it would have tons of negative side effects.
Every tax is unpopular and undesireable.
Why would I work if government is taxing my income? Why would I invest? Why would I drive the car, blah blah.
Land tax is easy to collect, fast to pay, hard to avoid or game, and encourages productivity and efficiency.
And this cuddling of boomers who've benefited by piling up gigantic government debts and expect to be paid back (typically holding gov bond) is literally going to destroy the financial system. Part of the benefit of this tax is that if you can't pay for fair value of the land you're preventing others from using, you have to sell and get out, so e.g. a productive family can pay your for it, and use it instead of your now unproductive self. If you don't want that, you have to pay the same tax they would pay. Just because you're retired doesn't mean "your done with your duties to the rest of society and you can just expect free shit and do nothing" _especially_ that your "wealth" is just rent seeking on younger generations.
If boomers keep preventing younger generations from being productive and having opportunities, the economy will dwindle, the pile of of debt and other financial assets will collapse, hyperinfation is going to destroy their paper wealth and they will be starving or worse. Just watch, because I doubt at this point is avoidable anyway.
For what it's worth, the way Israel deals with this is that property tax is levied on the property resident, not the property owner. In other words, when you rent a house, the person who is legally responsible for paying the tax is the renter.
This makes it exceedingly easy to ensure that old people are not affected by property taxes: if you are elderly resident, you simply get a discount. If you are an elderly landlord who owns multiple properties, your younger tenants don't get a property tax discount, and you pay income taxes (not discounted for age) on the rental income. If you are elderly and want to downsize, your property tax discount follows you into the smaller apartment.
The system has its challenges, but it is far superior to Prop 13 and achieves the same goal.
> if you are elderly resident, you simply get a discount.
New York does it this way as well. If you are over the age of 65, you get a different rate.
> fixed income at the end of your life in no position really to deal with inflation.
This might be true if you have everything in cash in a safe at your house and plan on taking out fixed amounts for the rest of your life, I guess, but who are those people?
Most people are on social security, which is inflation adjusted.
Others with more wealth have retirement savings, which are likely mostly in bonds and stocks, which weather inflation not too shabbily. Interest rates go up, and banks start actually yielding interest!
Prop 13 passed mostly as a populist revolt against taxes, but in reality it does a lot more for people in their prime of earning and a toooon more for commercial property tax cuts than it does for retirees.
Every other state has better tax deferral mechanisms, and given the tiny fraction of Prop 14 effect that goes to retirees, I don't really buy this back formation of what was going on. If people really voted for such a lie, it wouldn't be the first time with propositions but from the media I've seen from the time I really don't think people were that duped and probably knew the broad effects of Prop 13.
I was alive at the time prop 13 passed. I was a little kid in Ohio. Even I remember the stories that were being circulated on the national news about old people being priced out of their homes in LA. It was a big campaign.
"Big campaign" sounds right. These sort of tax revolt campaigns tend to spread wide, with the hope of passing similar things elsewhere shortly after.
Fortunately, this one did not spread which is very good news, because the long term effects have been absolutely horrific for housing prices in California. However, I hear of other states right now proposing adoption of California's housing crisis via similar tax measures... Hopefully they don't pass and learn the lessons of what has happened here.
Vancouver used to have a land value tax, which was widely credited with the its prosperity up to the ~1960s. However eventually enough homeowners and landowners got sick of paying their fair share and overturned it, which has resulted in Vancouver's housing situation which is possibly even worse than the SF Bay Area's...
Inflation does not keep pace with the housing market
And not in small part because Prop 13 disconnects property from housing costs, which leads to political incentives where beneficiaries of Prop 13 embrace policy that causes housing prices to rise precipitously.
Prop 13 or not most people historically resisted zoning changes and pretty much all cities in the country, even in Manhattan, were downzoned dramatically from what was possible as far as infill development the pre war zoning plans. Even today, the trend is never to recognize the housing crisis for what it is and widely upzone, but to just nudge a little more capacity in some containment zone of the city at good arms length from the best of the single family home neighborhoods, in the form of say transit oriented development of certain specific constraining factors, rather than just opening up the floodgates and allowing for market to actually establish prices freely.
> This might be true if you have everything in cash in a safe at your house and plan on taking out fixed amounts for the rest of your life, I guess, but who are those people?
It seems an astonishingly large number of people, including on here, talk as if that were the case despite their actual living and retirement finances. People really hate inflation.
Something about the lizard brain wants the exchange rate between shiny object and edible object to be fixed and gets extremely upset if it changes.
(Or, as is becoming increasingly relevant, the exchange rate between shiny object and flammable fluids)
The exchange rate between shiny objects and edible objects has nothing to do with inflation though; they're both physical objects. Unless people start trading glittery balloons it is quite difficult for shiny objects to inflate and the fluctuations from increasing supply are generally not a problem.
The inflation complaints are people who prefer not to be taxed for saving currency and earning money in fiat. As far as it is a lizard brain thing it's more about principles of fairness in who should be paying taxes and the aversion people have to things taken away from them.
> Most people are on social security, which is inflation adjusted.
Right. Technically. And I have a bridge to sell you!
I was managing all the finances of one of my parents until they passed away. In 2022 inflation peaked at ~9%
That same year, their social security monthly payment went up by..... $10
That for sure covered all the rising costs (/s)
Social Security Announces 8.7 Percent Benefit Increase for 2023
https://www.ssa.gov/news/en/press/releases/2022-10-13.html
So either your parents were getting $115 from social security, or you are trying to report increase of a year with essentially 0% inflation as if it were the year with 9% inflation.
I have the numbers right here. Monthly payment went up from $2455 to $2465. So that's $10.
This is not from a press release or news article, it's from the actual check that got deposited monthly.
Retirees are not on fixed income and haven't been for decades. Social Security gets adjusted for inflation. 401ks grow. https://www.slowboring.com/p/seniors-arent-living-on-fixed-i...
So the way we fix it is by pulling more tax from net contributors and pushing it via social security so it can be pulled as property taxes. What a disaster.
That's exactly what we are already doing. Directly with social security and indirectly through not charging proper property tax
> Retirees are not on fixed income and haven't been for decades. Social Security gets adjusted for inflation.
Tell me you're not a retiree on social security (or know any) without telling me...
Social security gets adjusted up a very tiny percentage of actual inflation. Watching my elder parent go through this while managing their finances, I'm very aware.
The key bit is that California is relatively unique here. There are a few other states that have Prop-13-like laws, but California's is the most restrictive and incumbent-homeowner-friendly. All those other states (and the ones with nothing similar) seem to get along just fine.
Of course, the solution to increased demand (driving increases in property market value) is to build more housing. Without Prop 13, a big chunk of the NIMBYs who are currently against more housing would likely change their tune if they had to choose between no new housing or much higher property taxes.
I think it would be reasonable and productive to phase out Prop 13 over time, rather than immediately getting rid of it. We could structure it so a property doesn't lose Prop 13 protection until the next time it's sold (and then it never has that protection again). We could completely remove the inheritance loophole (which was tightened up in 2020 but still exists). We could even set a date, say, 10 or 15 years in the future, when re-assessments at market value will start for everyone, regardless of whether or not they've sold. We could also phase in higher allowed assessment percentage increases over time (right now it's capped at 2% per year, but we could, say, add 0.5% to that figure every year for some number of years).
Hell, we could even leave Prop 13 in place as it is today, and just bump up the assessment increase cap to 5% or 10% or something like that. (Texas, for reference, has their own 10% yearly cap on assessment increases.)
There are so many ways to solve this, but all of them are politically unpopular. (Hell, we couldn't even reform Prop 13 as it applies to commercial properties.) As a homeowner in California, I get it, but I still support Prop 13 reform and eventual Prop 13 abolishment.
Most of the other states have not seen the rise in population growth and real estate values seen in CA. There are still places where homes are like 250k or less. There is also way more value drop off outside the metros in most other states with high cost cities such as MA or NY. You could be 30 mins drive from boston in a great 400k home. Try and find that 30 mins out from SF or LA. There just isn't really that fall off in california that you might expect from real estate markets elsewhere. It is like the rising tide has lifted all boats.
"There are still places where homes are like 250k or less."
By land mass that's the majority of the country. Population concentration is the real issue.
This is what people in about five cities in the US think.
I live in San Antonio, a metro of 2M people (city itself is one of the 10 most populous in the US). That's pretty sizable. Median home is between 260K and 310K. That is, of course, with the larger homes you'll find here vs SF/Chicago/LA/etc.
San Antonio is in the middle of the state with 360 degrees of growth and relatively flat. California’s land growth has half of that with hills and mountains near the desirable areas.
It all comes down to zoning. The demand requires capacity and the only way to add it given the geographical constraints are through infill development. Still, cities are getting dragged kicking and screaming to these conclusions, hence the opposition of SB79, as well as the entire concept of SB79 of differential upzoning vs simply widely upzoning. Even just reverting to pre 1960 zoning plans would see LA's zoned capacity rise from the present day 4.5 million (it is in the 90s% as far as population to zoned capacity) or so to something north of 10 million. If you adjust it to the ratio of that pre 1970s zoning plan, when LA had about 2.5 million people in it, the city would be zoned for 20 million with today's population.
In fact that is all that really needs to be done to ameliorate the housing crisis in California: pass a single law that repeals every single zoning adjustment from after say 1960. Or pass a law that mandates a 4:1 ratio of zoned capacity to population. The ship will right itself if it is allowed to.
To be fair 250K homes and under homes are increasingly uncommon and increasingly undesirable. Rural areas with almost zero industry are averaging out at 600-750K. Maybe a bit of a downward trend, but the average salary in the area is like 50K. so it doesn't matter.
>Rural areas with almost zero industry are averaging out at 600-750K.
Where exactly? Not true for the midwest. E.g. (1,2,3)
1. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/933-Atmore-Ct-Indianapoli...
2. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/10916-S-Wabash-Ave-Chicag...
3. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3920-15th-Ave-S-Minneapol...
Here's what you might find 20 miles outside boston, this one is 350k:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/55-Emory-St-Brockton-MA-0...
While there is certainly some (very) expensive real estate outside of Boston, to a much greater degree than San Francisco, you can actually get a house within a drive for an evening event that's pretty reasonable to a much greater degree than the Bay Area.
"Rural areas with almost zero industry are averaging out at 600-750K."
Source? This is completely inconsistent with my experience.
> Without Prop 13, a big chunk of the NIMBYs who are currently against more housing would likely change their tune if they had to choose between no new housing or much higher property taxe
I mean, the way you make housing units more affordable is to make more of them, but for existing homeowners of SFH, building condo buildings in their neighborhood will increase their property value because the competition for the remaining lots increase. Given we build close to zero family friendly multi family in this country (ie, appartments buildings have zero family oriented amnenities), there isn’t much in there for nimbys. It’s the right thing to do but you can’t except nimbys to join in on a purely monetary basis.
>appartments buildings have zero family oriented amnenities
This isn't always true. I've seen apartment buildings that have a playground and little astroturf field and some small goals. The kids also are using the pool pretty heavily in every apartment I've lived with one. Some have other facilities like basketball or tennis as well that kids could take up (or use the smooth surface for skating or something).
This is a solved problem in other jurisdictions. Effectively you can just allow seniors to defer their property taxes at low interest rates and it becomes a liability on the house when it is transferred on death.
This is how the government countered the people demanding the end of debtor’s prison. And it’s not “transferred on death” it’s whenever the house is sold whether the owner is alive or not. Property tax is just rent paid to the government and the taxman always gets their dues one way or the other.
Just allow natural persons to defer these taxes until after death. Then when the house goes for sale you just subtract the taxes from the inheritance.
Empirically, according to Doucet, a land value tax would only raise average tax rates if you're living on a parking lot, or vacant lot. Aging homeowners would mostly see a slight decline in their property taxes ( California excluded ).
> the idea of being displaced at the end of your life out of the home you already paid off due to market forces you aren't even a participant in is actually widely unpopular even if it makes better economic sense.
Once you are old enough it makes a whole lot more sense to move to places designed to care for the elderly. Living alone in a huge house isn't good for your mental health and it isn't for your physical health, either, once you no longer have the energy to maintain it.
I could use a much smaller house than I have now and a much larger garage for tools, workshops, art studio, etc. But for me, the value of a larger property is that I get to go out of the house and spend time in the garden. Sometimes something as simple as pulling up weeds is a considerable boost to my mental health. Kneeling on a garden bench in the sun in the weather and pulling weeds is not something that's “enjoyable," but it is rejuvenating.
My 92-year-old mom has been the same way. Until one of her daughters moved in, she lived by herself in her house and garden. Just being able to go outside and experience the green space she planned and planted has kept her alive and healthy. If she were in some senior living place, she'd be dead by now. She would have withdrawn into her room and waited for her time.
> Once you are old enough it makes a whole lot more sense to move to places designed to care for the elderly. Living alone in a huge house isn't good for your mental health and it isn't for your physical health, either, once you no longer have the energy to maintain it.
This betrays some things. Not everyone is in a "huge house", and having this bias is going to lead you to bad conclusion. Most people don't have a huge house.
And, more importantly, tax should not be used to force people into one way of living in their latter years. They might be self-sufficient into their early 90s, and the last people who should be determining where they live are people who want to do it.
The single biggest problem is that Prop-13 applies to commercial properties too.
Yes, this is the actual issue with Prop-13. That makes no sense at all.
Protecting retirees from getting kicked out of their lifelong homes is a wonderful thing.
But then allowing corporations to take advantage of that is insane.
You handle that the same way income taxes do: the first X amount is exempt, like a standard deduction, applied to the land under someone's primary residence. Pair it with a rolling multi-year average for assessment so value spikes phase in gradually instead of hitting all at once. Keeps the incentive against passive land-holding everywhere else intact, without the blanket caps that also protect speculators. Instead of using one tool to fix it all, you use multiple tools that work together to make efficient systems
I think the marketing of prop 13 was old people getting kicked out of their houses.
But I think the majority of the tax avoidance goes to not-old-people, like immortal corporations that can own the land forever.
EDIT: random link - it seems like residential owners don't benefit anywhere NEAR as much as commercial, rental and industrial entitites.
https://youngamericans.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/...
The linked study in OP shows that the single biggest beneficiary of Prop 13 on a category basis was vacant land.
They reference the same site, slightly different article
Berkeley Institute for Young Americans (2023)
what I attached was: "Who Benefits from Proposition 13?" (2023)
Page 2 of what I attached shows the results in a slightly different light.
> being displaced at the end of your life out of the home you already paid off due to market forces you aren't even a participant in is actually widely unpopular even if it makes better economic sense
Whether it makes economic sense or not, it is extremely inhumane and that matters (or should matter) far more.
This idea that it is ok to kick out (via taxes) someone who spent 40 or 50 years contributing to society just so someone else can make more profit on their home is very sad.
Washington has a much lower property tax rate for a primary residence owned by a person over 65 years old.
61 years old. Also your household disposable income must be below a certain threshold that is based off county median household income.
Total Boomer Luxury Communism
Elderly retired people living in large houses close to where the work is has caused massive social, economic, political, and cultural harm. Young people can no longer afford to buy homes close to work, so they're forced to commute long distances. Their taxes then go in part to pay for the elderly person who lives in a million dollar house with multiple rooms, who receives many tax breaks. The young person cannot afford to start a family, cannot afford to buy a home, loses a lot of time each day on commuting, spends a fortune on commuting, has less time for family, and causes enormous inefficiencies in the job market. This is nothing short of a concerted redistribution of wealth from the young to the old. It's a travesty which the elderly today would not have accepted.
I do not feel sorry for the elderly person sitting on a large and expensive property who demands to spend their final decades squatting on land which could house a family and allow parents to get to work within a reasonable amount of time. They have options the young person does not. They can get a reverse mortgage, for example. They get social security, and draw down on whatever pensions and investments they've accrued over their lives. Their costs are much lower - they don't have children to support. Or they can move, and I'm sorry, but it's not impossible for a retired person to move. Millions of them do it every year all over the country. Often to really nice elderly communities full of activities and specialised care.
I say all of this as someone who leans more libertarian than collectivist. Society is interconnected and interdependent. We cannot function if he keep young people under our boots. Asking the elderly to move is a *very* small price to pay if we expect the young to shoulder the enormous tax and debt burdens said elderly have imposed upon them.
Exactly. And I am appalled by the level of injustice and stupidity (I will explain both) demonstrated by so many comments here.
Injustice, because they refuse to see the other side of the coin, or the full picture, and a decision ignoring the full picture can be just only by accident (at least in common moral systems).
Stupidity, because it betrays a lack of touch with reality. In this regard I am reminded of a recent thread here, where an article about artificial meat was being discussed. An author of the article expressed their uncomfortable feeling when eating the artificial meat, caused by their thought about the unnatural, "lab" origin of that substance. If that article was sincere, that person have probably never visited a slaughterhouse, or killed an animal by their own hands in order to eat it. This kind of cessation of contact with underlying reality behind our everyday experience is quite common in our modern societies.
In order to be succinct, let me just say that historically it was common for elderly people to live in multigenerational households, sharing their space with a younger family and helping (as long as they could) with chores and taking care of children. While that is not the only viable way, and I am in no way against the modern pension system in general (although its current implementations in most if not all western societies have their problems; and also make many people to lose "touch with reality" in the way I alluded to above), it was quite a natural way of handling the issue of old age that reflected constraints under which a human society existed (and still continues to exist today).
Since I feel that the dominant sentiment of the commenters here is based on emotions and "morality" in a way that I believe is inherently evil, I will close this comment with a refrain from emotions and morality, and state a cold-hearted truth: A society that discards its old people might be a bad one to live in but might be able to survive. A society that discards its young people is destined to die. [To avoid misunderstanding: I do not argue that we should discard old people.]
“Beat it, grandma!” “But I’ve lived here all my life, my husband has passed, and all my friends live here!” “Not for long; we’re kicking them out, too!”
That line of thinking sounds insanely unpopular to me and while it might be more efficient in some ways, I think its unpopularity makes it unlikely in a democracy.
"Pay your taxes, grandma." If you think tax is theft I can see why this doesn't abide, but I do not share your opinion.
tl;dr: retirement benefits and children
Why should the typical old person or couple have a large home all to themselves?
I think (in a semi ideal world) individuals and couples should be entitled to small apartments or tiny houses, which would be cheap enough for an old person on retirement benefits. An average American home is for a family: as the parents age, some of their kids start financing the home, while other kids may move living spaces, or everyone splits up and the house goes to a new family (presumably a couple moving from a small apartment).
A land tax means that you don't own property but rent it.
This is bringing us back to the dark ages in terms of land rights.
>A land tax means that you don't own property but rent it.
A few comments:
1) we already have property taxes so I don't understand the objection; a land value tax is just a property tax with a different way of assessing value.
2) I don't think this idea of "not owning property, only renting it" is actually that crazy if you take a long term view over it. Land is a finite, shared resource. We already acknowledge that you don't have absolute rights over land that you own in the same way you do over, say, a toaster. We place all kinds of restrictions on what you can do with it, we tax its ownership, we have eminent domain laws, etc.
The idea of treating land as a pure asset has had a lot of negative social effects and ultimately will lead to a kind of neo-feudalism where the megarich own everything and the underclasses are perpetual renters.
>Land is a finite, shared resource.
Everything is a finite shared resource.
That's the point of ownership.
>The idea of treating land as a pure asset has had a lot of negative social effects and ultimately will lead to a kind of neo-feudalism where the megarich own everything and the underclasses are perpetual renters.
The idea that land is not a pure asset leads to regular feudalism.
No, some resources aren't shared (for example, human capital: things that I know how to do aren't shared, since nobody can 'borrow' my knowledge) or are effectively infinite (for instance, you can travel arbitrarily far into outer space and not run out of space).
What do you think an income tax is? Its the shared resource from human capital. It doesn't have to be homogenous or even equal to be shared.
> Everything is a finite shared resource. > That's the point of ownership.
I think the point is that (up to a limit that we're a long way from reaching) we can make more toasters to satisfy any additional demand that arises for toasters. But we can't make more land to satisfy any additional demand that arises for land. So we have to share the land in a way that we don't have to share toasters.
> The idea that land is not a pure asset leads to regular feudalism.
Yup. And despite the claims made that it's a solution for the common folk, the people who "own" and can make decisions about the land will be the megarich, so it will be feudalism, with rent due on the land you own.
You are mistaken on several grounds, but the most glaring issue is that you do not properly understand the concept of property/ownership.
For all practical purposes property/ownership is a service provided by society, not a static "attribute" of stuff (the only exception is when you live entirely without any sort of contact with other people, in which case, however, the concept of property becomes void, at least practically). And any service carries a cost with it.
For instance, in our kind of societies, the institution of property requires, at the very least: (1) legislature that defines what property is and all the related rules, (2) the administrative part that handles property transfers and other issues, and keeps the record of who own what, (3) the judiciary system that interprets the legislation and resolves disagreements and other issues related to property, (4) the police or some other body that enforces and protects the whole system within the society, (5) the army that protect the property of the society against the claims of external groups. In our societies many of these institutions carry also other functions, but enabling the system of ownership is an important part of their job. And this service is very expensive --- so not paying any taxes on property means that those costs must be covered by some other sources (e.g. selling natural resources, income taxes, ...) and, usually, lead to a transfer of wealth within the society.
So the idea that you just "own" something (your house for instance) and any kind costs of that imposed on you by the society/government are unjust is completely and patently misguided. If anything, the opposite it true.
(That does not mean that the tax system must be necessarily constructed to reflect that, as there is no single and obvious correct way to design a tax system, and other important considerations enter that issue.)
> A land tax means that you don't own property but rent it.
how is this any different from the statement "a property tax means that you don't own the property but rent it"
If you can own land, what happens when all the land is owned but newly born people need some?
Drive through New Mexico, there’s a lot of land.
Old people die.
And owners pay taxes on (some of the) assets they have, land being a big one. Hoarding mentality may have been fine for frontier wild west but ain't much compatible with modern societies which are chock full of humans in all the sweet spots.
Expectation that this comes with 0 cost just because it would suit you is a bit naive, innit
And then their land goes back to the government free pool? Is that still ownership or is it just renting for life?
We never left the dark ages in this respect. The government grants you title to deed and then you must pay your share to the lord (gov).
every tax can be expaned to a infinite series of rent.
displaced because the land has become so valuable you can no longer pay the tax on it and have to sell for a massive profit?
boo hoo? My generation has never even had access to affordable housing. Sorry you have to take your millions and live on a smaller property for your last few years.
The first time I heard about a Land Value Tax it sounded great. You can then go read where it's been tried and find that it's extremely hard to implement.
As just one example, if I place becomes popular then suddenly the taxes rise and people have to move out. Lots of people hate that idea and so vote it away. And then LVT no longer works.
This is what already happens. While not via taxes, the COL already rises with how nice a place becomes.
Do the taxes rise because an increase in rate or the underlying value. If it is the value then cry me a river.
You can't tax "the land". You tax the owner. The money doesn't come from the land but whatever source of income the owner has. That's what you are really taxing.
To actually tax the land, the owner needs to sell it, but who is going to buy taxed land? You are forced to sell it to pay the tax.
So taxed land, in the end, loses value, because it's sold more and bought less, and the source of income goes away, because he was forced to sell the land.
I am a friendly guy and good neighbour. People want to be near me. The value of land in my area rises.
Now I have to pay for my own kindness.
lmao economists, really
> Economist Henry George in the 1800's, pointed out that taxing land, but not the property on it, incentivizes efficient use of land, because holding land for its passive (parasitic) return even when underused, becomes unprofitable when the land is taxed in proportion to the value it can enable.
That sounds like a terrible idea to me. Efficiency isn't everything. Small stripes owned by many people or by many smaller companies it's less efficient than one hedgefond owning everything and yet it has disadvantages.
A forest is much less efficient than a mall and yet, the forest might still be more important.
There's also no way for a government to effectively determine the potential value of land. Asking them to do it means inviting disaster and corruption.
In a weird twist of irony our efforts to be lazy end up costing us a lot of work. But that's also because there's two types of lazy: short term and overall work. We used to say we want to hire programmers that are lazy because they'll find the most efficient way to do something. But now we don't revere that kind of lazy, we like the kind of lazy that procrastinates. Do the quick cheap thing now, telling ourselves that we'll make it better in the future, knowing that's a lie. That pattern isn't unique to programming, it's just marshmallows.
In WA state (maybe others too?), the county assess my land value and the building value separately on my property taxes.
Point being: the government has been assessing land value for a long long time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax_in_the_United_S...
The main problem with this view is that land value is laggard to the economy. You will end up taxing people more than what the land is actually worth during downturns, instigating a vicious feedback loop to cause further problems. The logical path is to tax money where there is money - income.
What gives the taxman a right to the fruits of a persons labor? There is of course no other argument for this than "or we kill you". Tax on income is another form of slavery and serfdom. Especially when you consider that a large proportion of slaves through history were free to roam and had to find their own source of income to pay a weekly or monthly fee to their owner.
All other forms of taxation at least have arguments to ethically justify them, including land taxation.
The cooperative will of people?
The argument is not "pay taxes or we kill you", it's "pay taxes or get out of our town". No one is a slave, if the government asks for too much and provides too little, people will move.
I live in a town with non-trivial taxes. It was my personal decision to move there, no one said "move there or we kill you". When choosing a place to live, I could have moved to some other city/state/country with lower taxes, but I've decided not to. I like that we have working utilities, parks, roads, schools, law enforcement, stores. The town had a vote to increase town tax to raise money for schools and libraries, more than 70% approved.
I don't care about your ethical reasoning about tax types, if you want to live in my town, you contribute to the town's well-being. If you refuse to, on any grounds... well, maybe some other place will be a better fit for you.
Roads, libraries etc. Why is it better that those are paid from income taxes rather than property taxes? Or sales taxes or tariffs etc?
You're arguing "end justifies the means" and "might is right". "My town" and all as you argue.
Unless you truly believe that people choose where and how they will be born, which of course might be the case. And then they only have themselves to blame, as you say.
Is not "your" town
I'd like to hear how you think land tax is ethically better. You mention serfdom, which is most similarly linked to land tax as the serfs would have to pay the lord for existing on that place. Likewise, your mention of roaming slaves forgets that they had to pay some value every period and were not allowed to simply not work, which is more similar to property tax where you must pay regardless of income or ability or pay.
> your mention of roaming slaves forget
I mention it right there in the very same sentence, you must have stopped halfway.
> I'd like to hear how you think land tax is ethically better.
First things first - "better" is a bit strong of a word since there has never been any argument made in favour for taxing labour except for "might is right" or "the end justifies the means". If you have an argument except for those to why it is ethically right by itself to tax somebody for working, then I'd like to hear it.
Now for the argument in favor of land tax:
Nobody has any inherent right to "own" land. The concept of "owning" is an invention and is also completely absurd once you think deeply and clearly about it. God created all land and it has been there for millions of years before anybody set foot upon it and claimed ownership. Claiming to own the land - and what more claiming to have a right to transfer that ownership to anybody but your children - is something of an abomination.
Compared to owning your labour and the fruits of your labour. Which is an extension of owning your own body. Or owning something you've purchased and can bring with you wherever you go.
The government itself is an extension of the concept of land ownership. So it is natural that they would levy taxes on their vassals - people claiming ownership of any land. The government vouches for your unjustifiable claim on this land and you pay them for the privilege. It also fits very well with the concept of governments being limited geographically in extension.
I don't claim that there aren't very good arguments against taxing land, but there are at least ethical and logical arguments for it, while taxation of labour have no such arguments in favor.
You can also argue ethically in favour of taxation on foreign trade - tariffs. Because in such, the government doesn't interfere in what people do within their country.
> You mention serfdom, which is most similarly linked to land tax as the serfs would have to pay the lord for existing on that place.
You forget that the serfs are given no right to sell the land, which is why they are serfs and not lords. That's the most important factor. The lord certainly did pay a land tax to the king.
Georgists think that my taxes should go up if someone builds Disneyland near my land.
Yeah, because the value of your land just went up and you didn't do anything to make that happen. Only right that excess value goes back to society and reduces the tax burden of the working class.
If you're a professional landowner and investor, and the taxes on one parcel of land in your portfolio went up because someone built Disneyland near it, this is fine. You might want to sell that parcel out of your portfolio now; or you might want to do something like build a hotel on it catering to Disneyland-visitors, which will earn you enough in profits to more than make up for the higher land tax.
If you're an ordinary person who owns the home you live in, and they build Disneyland next to it, most of the ways that the value of the land your home is on increases are useless or actively harmful to you. It's actively bad for you if you have to sell your family home and move somewhere else because you can no longer afford the taxes on it. You're probably not a professional real estate developer who knows how to effectively use the land as an investment, after all, you just wanted to live somewhere stable.
In fact, the increase of value of your land and the consequent tax increase under Georgist land value schemes, would be so bad for you, that you might decide to protestthe construction of that Disneyland to begin with. This is typically called "NIMBYism", and it happens all the time even under current property-tax schemes because the negative externalities of many different types of construction are bad for the quality of life of existing homeowners.
> It's actively bad for you if you have to sell your family home and move somewhere else because you can no longer afford the taxes on it.
But it's no problem of course that several generations of people currently can never afford to own a home of their own even though they contribute enormously to the economy and to society through their highly productive labour?
Ten times more people have already been forced to move away from where they grew up because of real estate prices than would ever have to be forced to move away because of land value taxes.
A hundred times more people can never afford a home because of real estate prices than would ever have to be forced to sell their homes because of land value taxes.
OK great make a homestead exemption. Lots of those already.
You can defer your property taxes and have them paid out of the proceeds when you sell your home/land.
How is this different from just having higher taxes on capital gains? (Obviously higher capital gains taxes would also impact other assets, but I mean in the context of land. Seems like both result in the same effect if you're able to defer LVT until sale.)
> How is this different from just having higher taxes on capital gains?
The goal of the deferment is to stop a negative outcome (the resident being forced to sell their property because of higher LVT taxes) from occurring until the resident actually wants to do so.
Seems like a huge risk, what if the land then deprecate after appreciating for a while? You'd owe a lot of money from the appreciation years, but the sale of the house doesn't cover it because it's now depreciated
You can always make exemptions/reliefs for people whose only property is their one house.
And besides, selling it earns you more money, so you're still not losing out (fair enough that you might not want to move out, but still)
Or you can.. you know, sell the now expensive property, buy one cheaper which doesn't have such appreciation, and enjoy those sweet money gained by doing nothing (well almost). If you invested in stock and gained significantly, you should also not be taxed more on those gains (and even more in tax progressive regimes in most jurisdictions)? Wealth is wealth at the end, you gain more, you pay taxes.
I get it, people are inherently selfish, most don't want to give back to society more than absolutely minimum to keep them from prison, and this mentality is way more common in US or most of 3rd world than say Europe. But then don't complain when state institutions like public schools and healthcare are utter crap, something about cake and stuff.
Why is it assumed true that individuals do not contribute to the increasing appeal of their neighborhood?
What if I voted for pro-theme park politicians? Or what if I volunteered my time to clean up the community parks and shared space? What if I helped improve the reputation of my child’s school by volunteering and donating to the music department?
My taxes fund the maintenance of public infrastructure and services, and my actions support the civic good. If I vote to be cheap or generous with taxes, or choose to be lazy or ambitious in community support, that all contributes to the desirability of the land around me.
> Why is it assumed true that individuals do not contribute to the increasing appeal of their neighborhood?
Two things are true: 1. I should have been more precise in my language. "You didn't do anything to make that happen" is a useful generality and not a prescription of every single individual in the community. In this case, we're talking about fairness - which I don't actually care much about myself, but is a point that people most often can emotionally identify with. But, to continue, if you're carrying all that water on behalf of your land value, then good for you! You likely have an existing stake in the community, other than the land that you own (maybe the businesses or houses or other property built on that land or you own a local services business). That is great! The fairness comes from owning the finite resource of land, and not something others can provide (housing, businesses, etc.). I hope you do continue to contribute to your local community and increase its appeal!
2. Your fixation on this point reveals a very fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of an LVT (surely partially my fault). It has to do with efficient taxation. Dollar equal, it's better that your taxes come from the value of the fixed resources of your community rather than things that can be increased. Because then you don't have a depressing effect on productivity and the things, other than land, that make your community nice. It's better that you keep more money from the things you _do_ for your community instead of the monopolies you hold in your community.
I disagree with the fundamental premise on both parts.
> "You didn't do anything to make that happen" is a useful generality and not a prescription of every single individual in the community.
In fact, everyone does contribute, positively or negatively, to their community. Either through involvement or absenteeism, or somewhere in between.
> Your fixation on this point reveals a very fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of an LVT
The goal is obvious and not a misunderstanding. The goal is a bad goal, precisely because it punishes positive involvement in the community. To improve the community means to increase your own cost of staying.
Imagine someone wants to avoid displacement due to their taxes increasing beyond their ability to pay. I don’t know why they would want to stay in their economically “inefficient” house, but perhaps it’s because home is where the heart is and they have sentimental attachment to their home.
If they want to keep your housing costs down, the best thing to do is poison the ground (metaphorically or literally) because it decreases the “productivity” of the land. Box stores in America famously pay low property taxes because building a box store actually decreases property values - they’re expensive to demolish and limited in utility, while being an eye sore that makes the neighborhood higher traffic and less undesirable. Mississippi as a state is cheap because the voters used the government to destroy public services - it’s in someone’s best interest to do this in a Georgism world if they don’t want to be regularly displaced.
Quite the contrary, it rewards positive involvement in the community and it punishes anti social involvement in the community (leaving your lot empty, letting your neighbors create a vibrant community you do not contribute to, and then selling at a large profit anyway). The reward is the taxes you're not paying on the positive productivity you're bringing to your community (which is how we're currently punishing those who make their communities nicer).
Please just look at the pictures and decide if it peaks your interest enough to read the post: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/does-georgism-work-five-yea...
Link with highlighted text (It's a single paragraph): https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/does-georgism-work-five-yea...
> If they want to keep your housing costs down, the best thing to do is poison the ground (metaphorically or literally) because it decreases the “productivity” of the land
Yes, if you collapse multi-dimensional problems into a single dimension you can find many logical oddities. If I wanted an easier time finding a doctors appointment, I should murder every non healthcare professional in my local area until all of their calendars are totally clear. Wanting cheaper healthcare is evil! You're really saying things for the sake of saying them and I'm not going to engage further or explain to you when you're saying irrelevant things.
> it’s in someone’s best interest to do this in a Georgism world if they don’t want to be regularly displaced.
Under the majority of proposed LVT policies (and the ones I support) the vast majority of American housing would see a decrease in net property taxes paid since the majority of American's Building / Land value ratio is orders of magnitude higher than the average parking lot, land speculator, etc.
> I should murder every non healthcare professional
Crazy comparison to Walmarts lowering their own property tax because building a Walmart makes future land use less attractive.
(Same thing applies to gas stations which do literally poison their own land)
> I'm not going to engage further or explain to you when you're saying irrelevant things.
Don’t engage that’s fine, but I gave a specific example of a common way to use land (box stores), which explicitly breaks the LVT model. People today use land for many economic activities that are expensive to repurpose, or impose negative externalities.
The box store argument is pro LVT. Read the article.
Liquidity is a value of its own. 10% equity in a $1M non-fungible residentially-zoned lot is much less valuable than $100K in cash, ready to wire at a moment's notice.
"the value of your land just went up and you didn't do anything to make that happen"
Ben, with that argument, when someone wants to pay you $1M for "bengarcia.dev", you would not take it because you didn't do anything other than pay $12 to the registrar.
You would take it and then you would pay some tax.
I was pointing to the argument that "you didn't do anything to make it happen. Only right that excess value goes back to society and reduces the tax burden of the working class."
Sounds like Obama's "If you’ve got a business, you didn't build that" argument (though Obama might have just screwed up the words, or maybe he simply had a Kinsley gaffe, aka a Freudian Slip).
The land owner DID work for it. He BOUGHT that land (and also the option that it could go up, or down, in value) with the sweat of his hard earned work or savings, or that of their family or business partners.
OP's wording states that he would favor confiscating value generated by the acquisition if such value happened because the market's perceived value increased.
It's basically a communist wealth redistribution logic.
My point is that if someone were to offer $1M for OP's "bengarcia.dev" domain, that OP would not send $999,988 ($1M minus $12 bucks of registration) to the Federal Government.
Yes Ben, The US Government IS READY TO TAKE YOUR GIFT!
SEE: https://fiscal.treasury.gov/financing/gifts-to-government
Are you making the argument that land banking is economically productive? Or a more esoteric point about the how people "earn" money? Because land banking is economically unproductive, and there isn't much dispute about that. I'm much less interested in a philosophical argument about whether you believe land banking is definitionally money earned or realised.
“land banking is economically unproductive, and there isn't much dispute about that”
I think you are confusing current utilization with economic productivity. There is an opportunity cost in hoding the land but land can also have economic value in the option. It’s the owner choice if he values its use even if it’s waiting for the option to come through and values it more than whatever alternative a self professed smart politician or OP’s abstract “society” might propose.
Whats’s next? Taxing you for your unused bedrooms, unused cars, unused clothes in your closet, unused nose rings, etc etc?
Just because some policymaker can identify a more productive use for someone’s property does not mean the policymaker knows the owner’s opportunity cost or future options or even risk better than the land owner.
An even better argument might be why do we need to tax at all? It’s not that governments are the pinnacle of capital allocation efficiency. After some useful level, governments are basically corruption machines ESPECIALLY IN CALIFORNIA. Just look at their homeless and illegals industrial complex.
What if the person who owns the land is working class? That’s who property taxes hit the hardest, working class people with a mortgage.
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/how-higher-prope...
The Federal Reserve's research suggests higher property taxes help the young and the working class by improving the immediate affordability of homes.
That article is ridiculous “More expensive tomorrow, more affordable today”. It reads like a predatory credit card offer and is full of what if’s.
High property taxes pushing down the sales price of a house does not help the buyer or seller. The buyer is going to pay the same, just more in taxes vs the loan, and the seller is going to get less because high taxes have reduced the value of their home.
This is exactly right. The elasticity on the buying side (not private equity) just isn't there like it may have once been.
That article is also based on real studies on observable differences between cities today.
It means higher property taxes means lower sales prices, less debt for buyers, and younger people buying their first home and forming families.
A land value tax is better, because it doesn't raise your taxes for improving your home.
Makes sense to me.
If you don't want to pay the taxes, thanks to Disneyland you can now sell your land for a nice fat gain, buy cheaper land elsewhere, and pocket the difference. And whoever bought your land will likely use it for the social good (maybe build a hotel or something).
So through no plan of my own, I get to uproot my family. That is indeed great
/s
I would imagine that if Disneyland were built next door, that might be in the cards regardless of the tax situation...
It's just a reality of life that not every homeowner can possibly be entitled to fully control what gets done with the land around them, and that's going to cause some friction.
It's a difficult job to navigate who gets to decide what, while still enabling necessary development. LVT is just one of the more elegant ways to do this.
I'm not a big LVT fan - pushing for maximally productive use of land is going to result in displacing people, displacing small businesses, displacing artistic/cultural/environmental spaces, etc.
I would much rather see an overall assets tax that scales with the value of the assets. That would incentivize more smaller businesses, long-term thinking, and wealth distribution. It would hit big corporations in the same way a LVT would, forcing them to be more and more productive with their assets the more they have, without pricing out smaller entities.
Through no plan of your own, you now have $1M - tax free. I am currently playing the world's smallest violin.
I think that there's something about LVT, but your dismissal is very shallow and why it's not been implemented so far.
I don't _want_ $1M, I want to live in my house that I bought and lived in for years. Getting money I don't need and having to live in a place I don't want to live in is _not_ a positive situation.
I don't think some extra taxes on expensive land is the red line you appear to believe it is. People who own expensive land have many options the rest of the world could only dream of, including reverse mortgages. Meaning no one is actually forcing anyone off their land. They're just being asked to pay some extra taxes. If you believe tax is theft, I can see why this is agitating, but I do not share that view.
I do not share that "taxation is theft" view either. And I agree that owning expensive land is a privileged position. But the concern of being pushed out of one's home because of an increase in tax is real, "just sell it" is not a viable solution, houses and locations are not fungible.
Maybe reverse mortgages are the answer, I'm not sure, I'll admit I'm not very knowledgable about this.
> Getting money I don't need and having to live in a place I don't want to live in is _not_ a positive situation.
It doesn't need to be.
"No one can ever build any new developments" is also a very negative situation for everyone.*
The goal is to balance these tradeoffs, and it can't just be sunshine and roses for everyone all the time.
*It's also basically our present situation, which is why housing is so absurdly expensive.
Why do you believe that you should be allowed to preserve your present lifestyle in amber at a (very minor incremental) cost to economic prosperity for all of society?
This assumes a house is nothing but an investment, like a bunch of stock.
This is far from reality. A home is family and life to most people, nobody cares if it went up or down in value, a home is about our life.
> nobody cares if it went up or down in value
If only this were true, we wouldn't have homeowners constantly fighting against new development or construction. Many homeowners treat their primary residence as an investment.
> If only this were true, we wouldn't have homeowners constantly fighting against new development or construction. Many homeowners treat their primary residence as an investment.
You'll be very hard pressed to find any home owner who actually thinks in this cartoonish way.
When people oppose changing the character of their home neighborhood it has nothing to do with "treating their primary residence as an investment". It is because they selected a place to live, to call home, based on some criteria that they liked. Everyone does. A home is a big commitment, so you spend a lot of time researching exactly where you want to settle down for the next many decades. You pick an area you like, a neighborhood you enjoy.
For some people that might be quite rural, for some people distant suburban, for others near-city suburban, for others inner-city center. Whichever type of area you select, it is because that's the kind of area you personally enjoy the most. Somehow this obvious truth is controversial on HN for reasons I don't understand, but it is the truth. People select what makes them happy, no surprise.
So, when people oppose seeing their suburban area torn down to build highrises, it has absolutely nothing to do with home values or investments.
People oppose it because they very intentionally chose to live in a suburb far away from highrises and now they see those imposed on them. Of course they're unhappy. Basic human nature, nothing to do with investments.
If someone feels this is not so, I'd appreciate an explanation of your viewpoint.
In my experience the vast majority of NIMBYs do not care about how much their property is worth. They just really don’t want the area they live in to change, because they think all change is bad.
My comment was made with the lens of a regular home that people live in.
Obviously. If you live in a single family home next door to Disneyland you’re ducking over all the people who want to stay in a hotel there. You should have to pay for that privilege.
>If we view raw nature as a common inheritance of mankind, then paying a tax on land is how the exclusionary use of it
This will have some of the unfortunate effect of collectivism. We don't want the govt to tax you into poverty.
A simpler overall approach (I've left out the nuances) would be to have an equal amount of land per person completely tax free. Individuals can then rent out their land for others to use as needed. Forests/rivers/conservation lands etc. can be seen as truly a common inheritance of mankind and should generally have the least of commercial activity.
p.s - a govt will never agree to such an arrangement because it will not favor them.
I'm curious as to how you think we should divide up who gets what plots, can you explain how that works?
>I'm curious as to how you think we should divide up who gets what plots, can you explain how that works?
This is not going to be easy. But it can be done even if it's done imperfectly. For example all the fertile land can be divided equally and the infertile ones equally - so an individual will have multiple plots. There are other issues also - for example what happens if someone decides to have 10 + children. In certain locations around the world people have essentially out bred the land resources that they have.
Of course one might ask why should one bother with all of this complexity I stated above? One has to compare it with the current situation which I think is the greater of the evils:
1) government decides the property tax. In many situations people are edged out of their own properties because they cannot afford the property tax.
2) it goes against the very principle that citizens own their land and not the government. The current state of affairs is the other way around.
3) People do not have ways to live off their own land like they used to in the past, now they have to have jobs. If they do not have jobs then they have to have a social security, which leads to a whole bunch of other issues.
4) tax complications.
Let me phrase the overall problem in another way - how do we prevent government from excessively controlling our lives, and have the citizens truly owning their own land without having to 'rent' it from the government?
I read it like “of the land you own, up to x amount is tax exempt”. Which makes perfect sense, and encourages ownership transfer and de-aggregation. Where aggregation of land plots actively increases land use efficiency, that efficiency gain is expected to be large enough to offset the added tax.
I disagree. A major premise of Georgism is efficient use of high demand land. E.g. housing close to high wage workplaces in cities. If we make exemptions for people to sit on land forever - who do not need or want to work in those workplaces - a major structural efficiency is lost. Instead of the land owner building high density housing on that land, they just retire on it forever, locking up productive land which could have housed 10 families. For this to work, all land needs to be taxed proportionate to its value. Yes, it's annoying to have to move because your house is suddenly worth $2M, but that's a pretty great problem to have, all things considered. In most places that tax free money - more than most people will earn in a lifetime.
Raise X in land tax and then you spend it evenly amongst the population. Anyone using less than their fair share gets a bonus, anyone uses more has to pay.
If you just allow using X value, but tax free, then those who use less don’t get rewarded.
Effectively one non transferable share, one per citizen, with proceeds as a dividend.
> p.s - a govt will never agree to such an arrangement because it will not favor them.
IDK, governments tend to align with what results in the most economic activity being created / moved into their country ("growth"). If you were able to convince that overall economic growth would be multiple times higher over a few decades with the system, it might just become appealing.
A problem I see with implementation in the US, though, is that local municipalities are who tax land and property value, so entire rural counties and cities would have their funding stunted. And asking the government to buy into that while subsidizing low-growth areas for a long time (decades / forever, if a rural area never develops) is a really hard sell.
>governments tend to align with what results in the most economic activity being created / moved into their country ("growth").
So explain the last ~50yr of state and local regulation of land development?
> A simpler overall approach (I've left out the nuances) would be to have an equal amount of land per person completely tax free
I like the thought, but the challenge in most places is that the poor are already paying massive "negative tax" in the form of various social subsidies.
So if you add tax exemptions on top of it, it becomes increasingly impractical to raise enough taxes.
And no, it can't be done simply by taxing the rich more. That should be done too, in my view! But the math is simply such that we need a pretty broad tax base to support our spending.
You forget that every willing person would easily find work that pays more when income taxes have been removed, and thus not need government benefits.
Bang on. You seem to get the spirit of what I'm saying.
> This will have some of the unfortunate effect of collectivism. We don't want the govt to tax you into poverty.
Weird framing. In any case, this would lead to less taxes for most folks, at least compared to property taxes.
[dead]
So a data center pays the same taxes as a homeowner, foot for foot? It seems unfair at first, but then it occurs to me that data centers would not be so desirable if they were not paying higher taxes. If land value tax helped to pop the data center bubble it would make the more off-putting aspects (organic farming is a less efficient use of land than factory farms) more palatable. Why not have a hybrid approach, where the local community can decide to apply different types of tax systems to different types of land and land uses?
Seems backward, especially for California.
A hedge fund or a lawyer office with with a huge income but a a small office pays some tax. A sandwich shop close to them which barely had ends meet pays the same amount of tax.
I believe we should tax hedge funds much more than sandwich shops.
wonderful -- now take the modern case where the most fertile land, covered with farming, is converted to cement and home sales due to 100x immediate cash returns. The price? pavement is forever
Is this a collective push right now for LVT ? I got an e-mail this morning from Astral Codex Ten on the same topic - seems like a campaign is a foot.
Twice in one day for a topic as not specific as this seems intentional.
I wouldn't say it's coordinated. This is an old article, published in June. A lot of people came to the land economics blog from the ACX article that ran today, someone likely saw this one and then posted it to HN.
ACX has been on the Georgist tip for awhile.
Got it - thanks!
Taxing is a lie.
If an island produces 2 burgers a day and has 3 inhabitants: one is rich, another is the poorest worker who can afford a burger, and the third is indigent, the rich person buys his burger, the poorest worker buys the second burger, and the indigent buys nothing, because there are only 2 burgers.
So a socialist sees this and claims he will tax the rich to give a burger to the indigent.
He taxes the rich as much as necessary to ensure that the indigent gets the burger.
As the worker tries to pay more for his burger, the price rises, so the socialist raises the tax as much as necessary to ensure that the indigent still gets the burger.
So the next day, the rich person buys his burger, the indigent buys another burger, and the poorest worker goes hungry, because there are only 2 burgers.
The result is the same if the socialist taxes the rich, prints money, or takes on debt. He always takes the burger from the poorest worker.
So taxes and public spending are always paid by the poorest workers. It does not matter where the socialist gets the money from: he always taxes the poorest workers.
[dead]
[flagged]
I would challenge you to point out exactly where in OP's comment that he advocates abolishing all taxes except land taxes. I see only a comparison to taxing land vs property.
That's what Georgeism is?
Lars here. I run the Center for Land Economics with Greg (we wrote the OP blog post). We are not maximalist single taxers.
Henry George was obviously a Single Taxer, but "Georgism" has a generally broader meaning than that. Some Georgists are single taxers, but not all, including Greg and I.
When we talk to elected officials, we don't even talk about Henry George all that much (I did in the ACX article series because it all started with the progress and poverty book review). We mostly speak of "Land value return" and our focus is mostly on pragmatic revenue neutral tax shifts to LVT.
And where do they advocate wholesale adoption of Georgeism? You can like one part of a theory without adopting it all.
If I start espousing the great ideas of economist Karl Marx in a long comment I will forgive you for assuming that I may be a bit of a Marxist unless my comment has clear caveats to the contrary.
Irrelevant. Argue with what a comment actually says and advocates for, not what you guess the commenter might believe.
The comment advocates for Georgeism. If they disagree they can say so and elaborate on which non-LVT taxes they support. They haven't because my read on them is correct.
Karl Marx had a lot of great ideas that have been integrated into our modern liberal democracies (antitrust laws, labor unions, public schooling, etc). One can have a nuanced discussion of Das Kapital without being a communist. If you assume otherwise, that's your own cognitive blind spot.
I never said communist. But yes, you can pick and choose ideas from different thinkers. That said, what Nevermark wrote fits squarely within orthodox Georgeism.
They're free to prove me wrong by saying that they're in favour of sales tax or income tax or capital gains tax. That would prove to me that they're just taking the idea that "land value tax is good" without buying into Georgeism as a whole. But I'm confident we'll never see such a comment.
Why care about wealth disparity at all as long as everyone is better off? If I offered you to double your real wealth but also Bezo's real wealth, would you reject that offer just because wealth disparity went up?
Because obscene levels of wealth disparity makes everyone worse off. Power is a zero sum game.
If I were offered to double your real wealth but also double Bezos's real wealth, of course I would take that deal! I would benefit from it. But if you offered to double the real wealth of everyone, what would that even mean?
You are confusing money and wealth. We can all be richer. The vast majority today has riches that a medieval king could have never dreamed of. Exotic fruits year around. Magic devices. Healthcare that goes beyond anything medieval people could have imagined.
Yes, unlike economics, politics is zero-sum. The solution to that is to fix the political system, not to destroy the things that are working great.
What political system do you propose where wealth doesn't confer some political power?
Some political power is probably unavoidable, no matter the system and no matter the wealth distribution. We can do lots of things though to weaken that effect. Obvious options range from a simple campaign finance reform to more impactful things like sortition or election by jury.
I like Georgism, but I don't think it should be limited to just LVT. I think ownership of all natural resources (especially scarce ones) should be taxed at an aggressively progressive rate. Own one oil well? Cool. Own enough oil wells to supply the entirety of the Allied Forces throughout the duration of the European Theater in World War 2? Meh.
What if your only relationship with land is that you rent an apartment, but from that apartment you build a $10M/year revenue social network? How should that be taxed? Should it at all?
That would be income tax
I believe they described a system in which only natural resources are taxed. That's how I read "Georgeism but applied to all natural resources, not just land value". Income is not a natural resource which is why I asked them how they think it should be taxed, if at all.
I meant to suggest Georgeist natural resources taxes as an alternative to the current property tax scheme.
I'm not sure strict Georgeist policies hold up in a world where so much value is created digitally. It creates the perverse incentive to focus only on digital value creation rather than physical, and that's how you end up with a fragile or lopsided economy based solely on financialization (U.K.) or advertising (U.S.A.).
GP doesn't appear to be advocating for abolishing all tax. The thrust of it seems to be to abolish property tax and replace with a land value tax. There's no mention of abolishing income, capital gains, sales, use, etc. taxes.
Maybe don't attack a straw man you've stood up yourself?
I'm pretty certain Henry George would be very happy with pigovian taxes like a carbon tax as well.
Income tax it's definitely something he'd not prefer because it reduces incentive to do something we want you to do. Better to tax windfalls and undesirable things
My understanding is that Georgism opposes the kinds of tax you mention.
Cool, but just bringing up Georgism doesn't mean the commenter wants to go all-in full Georgist. People can agree with part of a philosophy and not all of it. But we don't know, so we should assume good faith, read the comment charitably (per HN guidelines), and argue against what the commenter actually said, not what we might assume they believe.
Then they can clarify which other taxes they support.
I think land value tax is good.
That doesn't mean LVT is a panacea.
I think that's a bit of a strawman and a false dichotomy.
I don't mind land value tax! Like you, I think it's one of many valid kinds of tax that a government can put on its citizens to achieve various social goals. Hence, I am not a Georgeist.
why not?
The onus is on you to describe some mechanism by which abolishing almost all taxation will magically fix wealth discrepancy.
I don't know what degree "fixing" means.
You can tax certain things a certain amount and you get diminishing returns. For example, if you had a 50% wealth tax, it would stop collecting anything pretty quickly and would cause pretty big economic disruption.
Land value tax has the potential to collect a lot of money with less disruption.
There's like $20 trillion worth of capitalized land value in the USA. That could mean like $1 trillion a year on-going assuming 5% discounting. Land rent is a perpetual stream of wealth.
There's only $8 trillion billionaire wealth. So already 5%/year would be less. And there's a huge incentive and ability to avoid it by moving.
And I rarely ever even hear suggestions for wealth tax rates around 5%. So then if you had a wealth tax, well land is wealth, and you'd be leaving a ton on the table as you could still have the land value tax at 5% of the capitalized value.
That money could be spent on public services that poorer people will benefit from more like transit, schools, or even local hospitals and subsidized healthcare. A typical point by LVT supporters here is that these services have the impact of raising land rents.
Most taxes have this dynamic:
tax -> invest in public services poor people use -> land rents go up -> land owners benefit
LVT has this dynamic:
Tax land -> invest in public services poor people use -> land rent goes up -> tax land more so land owners don't benefit
Landlords, developers, builders etc. should earn the return on the constructed housing, not the land.
> There's like $20 trillion worth of capitalized land value in the USA. That could mean like $1 trillion a year on-going assuming 5% discounting. Land rent is a perpetual stream of wealth.
Leasing the land of the US? That's your big revelation?
listen to the other commenter, fixing it means reducing wealth disparity.
"Fixing" means reducing economic disparity to some reasomable level.
And what is a reasonable level? And what evidence do you have that LVT can't achieve that? Maybe LVT creates such an increase in productivity it creates a virtuous cycle where land values increase so LVT increases and we can pay for so many public services and subsidies for the poor.
Idk but saying it's fixed when it's reasonable is really not answering the question.
I don't have exact numbers for what "a reasonable level" is off hand, but "a heck of a lot lower than now" would be a great start.
Again, the onus is on you to describe a mechanism by which abolishing most forms of taxes will drastically reduce wealth discrepancy. I'm not arguing against LVT, you're the one who's arguing against everything that's not LVT.
Tell me where I argued against everything that's not LVT lol
Again strawman and false dichotomy.
I can't help if you think LVT wouldn't reduce the disparity sufficiently. I'm saying that it's possible it does. I outlined the process how. You don't accept it that's fine. But I do think a big LVT would make a heck of a difference.
Again, that doesn't mean I'm against every and any other tax that could also make a difference.
You were trying to argue in favour of Georgeism weren't you? If not .... what point are you trying to make exactly?
[flagged]
Using up land is an externality, and thus should be taxed accordingly.
I don't understand your use of externality here. How is it imposing costs on others?
If you exclude others from a rectangle of land, you are imposing that exclusion on others and the others are due consideration. The rest of the property stack is good -- improvements require investment, investment requires returns, so binding the returns to the investment is important and creates incentives for good stewardship and skin-in-the-game decision making etc -- it's "just" the foundation that is problematic.
Georgists want to tackle this with a Land Value Tax, I tend to think it would be difficult to make this robust against highly motivated attack and the better approach is long-term leases with similar duration to building depreciation schedules. In either case, the idea is that capital appreciation of the dirt (which is really capital appreciation of the right to exclude others from the dirt) goes to public coffers, improvement value goes to the people who made the improvements. That's fair.
Of course, there's also the question of how to get there from here, and one way to do it without guillotines would be to tie the extraordinary tax treatment of property to conversion into a 99 year lease (and then, after 99 years, new issuance could target the ~30 year range). "Sure, you can have your 1031 capital gains tax exemption and pay no tax on the money you obtained by holding on to the right to exclude others from an increasingly popular rectangle of land, but only if you sign up to eventually be part of the solution rather than part of the problem."
> If you exclude others from a rectangle of land, you are imposing that exclusion on others and the others are due consideration.
I don't think this is a reasonable deformation of the notion of ownership nor externalities.
Use of owned assets, within legal boundaries, allows exclusive of use.
If you're complaint is about the current asset allocation, that's wildly different than either Georgism/LVT or externalities. There is a philosophical there-there, but I really don't grok a feasible defense of your claim; your supporting points are reasonable under a Rawlsian veil defense.
It is the notion of land ownership as a fundamental right that is the deformation.
If you make the legitimacy of property rights over land foundational to your philosophy, then of course they can't be challenged within that framework, but that's tautological and uninteresting -- I simply challenge your framework instead. Why should I accept it? In centuries past, a structurally identical framework -- ownership over human beings -- was used to rationalize and administer the institution of slavery, so unless you want to defend slavery then you must accept that the legitimacy of property rights is contingent on their specifics.
Eh, I get where you are coming from. However, you should accept it because the people with the social authority to coerce through guns or imprisonment require you to do so, instead of operating in a vacuum. Plus, land ownership makes for a much clearer system of institutions (which economists of all stripes agree are fundamental to prosperity).
Further, relaxing land ownership doesn't make current occupation an externality, which was the original claim. It's a categorical error to mix externalities with morals.
Really? Argument from authority? If (actual) communists had the guns, would might make them right about property? For someone who wants to throw categorical stones, you sure seem to have a loose grip on the is/ought distinction.
Thanks for trying to explain how owning land imposes an externality on others. I still don't see a clear case made, so I'm moving on. Have a good evening.
They can't use the same land anymore.
That’s true of everything in limited supply.
And what's being litigated here is how people deal with limited supply when "just make more money" isn't a real option.
So owning anything that’s in limited supply produces “externalities” that should be taxed?
If it's also a necessity for life, then honestly, yes?
Also, even when not a necessity, taxes are often just more efficient than the alternative.
Think about taxi licenses before Uber. The government thought there were too many taxis. They made a limited supply of medallions therefore. The government gave them away to existing taxi drivers for free. Eventually they reached $1,000,000.
Eventually there were too few taxis. Existing owners complained about trying to expand the supply because maybe they just took out a loan to buy one. People were even renting out medallions. Something the government handed out for free.
The whole mess could have been avoided if the government just taxed taxis until the quantity matched what they wanted.
In a way, you'd end up in a position similar to just handing out the medallions for free. The differences are the government is getting the money and the rate can be more easily changed.
This is a pretty close metaphor for land value tax. All LVT really does is instead of paying the prior owner or a bank for land, you pay the government in installments.
Who is litigating?
Not if there are either substitutes or financial incentive to make more. Capitalism is pretty great, it just doesn't work for certain natural resources that have a very finite supply.
Why not?
We’re all on this world for a little while and then we die and leave behind the detritus of our lives.
For some people that’s a house full of crap that their kids need to clean out after the funeral and for others that’s a dilapidated apartment building that’s soon to be condemned and will require asbestos abatement and demolition.
> The land value tax can’t be dodged by leaving nor can it be passed on to renters.
In what sense can't it be passed to renters? Esp if all landlords in the market were faced with a new land tax that they had not previously planned for, why would it not be passed on?
Rent is a function of supply and demand, not a landlord's costs, otherwise we would expect changes in e.g. mortgage interest costs to be passed on to, but in practice we don't see this effect. We also don't see landlords who own their properties outright (and thus don't have mortgage interest costs) charging lower rents than landlords in the neighborhood with identical properties who have mortgages. When landlords' costs drop, do they drop the rent in response?
Taxes can be passed on when the tax induces a change in supply. Conventional property taxes are partially passed through because the component of the tax that falls on the building. Tax buildings, get less buildings.
Taxes on land do not affect the supply of the land, this implies they are not passed on and the research literature largely agrees with this.
Landlord costs affect supply in the long term, so you will see changes, just not necessarily immediately over a one year period, but definitely over a 5-10 year period.
> We also don't see landlords who own their properties outright (and thus don't have mortgage interest costs) charging lower rents than landlords in the neighborhood with identical properties who have mortgages. When landlords' costs drop, do they drop the rent in response?
If costs are uniform for each landlord (they have to pay for), it limits the amount of money they can invest in new capacity, and you will see the effects over a decade. If one landlord has cost advantage over another, then they will of course probably just take the extra money as extra profit.
> Taxes on land do not affect the supply of the land, this implies they are not passed on and the research literature largely agrees with this.
They provide friction with what can be done with the land, because the cost of owning the land has to be paid. If it is just a land tax, however, you can game it by building as much as possible on it so the landowners who can't build as much as you can subsidize your usage (long term, you either have to build as much as you can on your land, or sell the land to someone who can).
> If it is just a land tax, however, you can game it by building as much as possible on it
That's not gaming it, that's the tax working as intended. We need more housing, so if that gets people to build more of it, that's a win.
> Landlord costs affect supply in the long term, so you will see changes, just not necessarily immediately over a one year period, but definitely over a 5-10 year period.
In fact - although that logic is usually correct - in the case of a land value tax it isn't useful because landlords do not supply land. Someone is still going to own the land and it is still going to be used for something. There is no incentive to leave it unused. There aren't any less resources in the overall system and resources haven't been diverted from a productive use to an unproductive use (quite the reverse, they're being redirected away from someone who was doing nothing to earn them). That is the theoretical advantage of taxing the land.
If it were anything else (eg, taxing the houses on the land) then the argument would be useful because the tax was on transforming less valuable resources into more valuable and there would be less productive economic activity and losses leading to less supply of something that the economy was signalling a need for.
There might be a reallocation from housing to some other purpose if an LVT is bought in, who knows. But it is a context-dependent change and not possible to reason about as a general outcome. It might be that the economy produces exactly the same amount of housing before and after. Less resources overall will be allocated to landlords, obviously, but not in a fashion that penalises building houses. Maybe that means house prices drop and more people own their houses outright. Maybe there is even more housing because resources move from landlords to housebuilders.
> If it is just a land tax, however, you can game it by building as much as possible...
I've never heard an entirely satisfactory process for valuing the land either. Although to some extent all tax systems have questionable underpinnings and compliance.
> If it is just a land tax, however, you can game it by building as much as possible on it so the landowners who can't build as much as you can subsidize your usage (long term, you either have to build as much as you can on your land, or sell the land to someone who can).
I was on the fence but your advocacy in favor of the land value tax has convinced me. Well played.
> Landlord costs affect supply in the long term, so you will see changes, just not necessarily immediately over a one year period, but definitely over a 5-10 year period.
This is true, but the degree depends on elasticity of supply, and that depends a lot on profitability of the sector.
> Taxes on land do not affect the supply of the land, this implies they are not passed on and the research literature largely agrees with this.
Taxes may not affect the amount of land that physically exists, but they absolutely can and do affect the amount of land available for rent as opposed to other income-generating use cases.
On top of that, a tax that applies equivalently to all of the land available to the rental market in a given area will simply push prices upwards across the board, which is likely to just be absorbed by renters given the usually low price elasticity of demand for housing.
> On top of that, a tax that applies equivalently to all of the land available to the rental market in a given area will simply push prices upwards across the board
Most research asserts that a land value tax decreases the selling price of land.
Presumably by exactly the value of the tax (over the lifetime of the purchase).
In a fully functioning spherical chicken market, once balancing in
If I buy land for $100k today, I can assume I'm going to make say $6k a year from renting it to someone and $2k a year from it increasing in value, giving me a 8% roi
If I instead had to pay just $4k a year in LVT, the price would reduce to $50k to keep that 8% roi. I'll still be making money for doing nothing.
Now if that LVT was returned to the population at large, it's quite possible the population has more money to spend on land, so I could increase the rental price from $6k a year, but then the LVT would increase, because the idea is it reduces unimproved land value to zero -- nobody should make money from occupying land, they should make money through improving it.
In reality though any LVT implemented would be full of loopholes which would introduce absurd incentives. Just like taxing income, and worse taxing earned income more than non-earned income.
But who's selling the land? If everybody has to pay the tax then all of the property owners can increase rental prices by the same amount.
All property owners can increase rental prices now anyway. They can only increase them to the maximum someone will pay for it. That's why average rental prices tends to track average income. If you have 5 homes and 6 people, each able to pay 2100, 2200... 2600, then the worst home will rent for 2200, and the one who can only afford 2100 will live in a box.
They can only increase rents as much as the next guy. If you're charging $2500 but next door is $2400, then nobody will rent from you. But if everybody's charging $2500, then that's what people will have to pay.
You're right that some people will get squeezed out, but in high demand markets there are enough people willing to pay that it doesn't matter. The number of properties available for rent in California isn't growing as fast as the total population is growing. Property owners will eat the 5% increase for a while - at least until the existing leases expire - but eventually they'll incorporate that 5% increase into the rent.
If you charge $2500 and next door charges $2400, the first person to arrive rents for $2400, the second person has no choice but to pay your $2500
Now what happens if there are three houses for rent in the area, instead of two? Four houses? A thousand?
There's a difference between can and must. A LOT of landlords don't maximally squeeze their tenants.
In fact, I'd argue the majority of landlords are shit investors sat on fairly low yields
Why would a land value tax shift the allocation of land between uses? The amount of the tax doesn't depend on what the land's being used for. If renting is the highest-value use without the tax, it will still be the highest-value use with the tax.
These are assertions, not arguments. Respond to points in the post you replied to. Be sure you understand them first; your assertions do not hold in the case of LVT.
> These are assertions, not arguments.
In fact, they are indeed arguments derived from applying well-understood economic principles to the specific -- and purely speculative -- claims posited by the preceding comment.
> Be sure you understand them first; your assertions do not hold in the case of LVT.
Indeed I have, and indeed they do. Rather, your own response attempting to dismiss rather than engage with counter-arguments betrays a likely ideological rather than pragmatic interest in the concept of LVT.
These are assertions, not arguments. Respond to points in the post you replied to. Be sure you understand them first.
Whether the landowner rents it to someone who will improve it to generate income, or they improve it themselves, doesn't matter.
> We also don't see landlords who own their properties outright (and thus don't have mortgage interest costs) charging lower rents than landlords in the neighborhood with identical properties who have mortgages.
Why would they as long as they find a renter? The market always charges the marginal cost.
They will charge the maximum amount possible, no matter what their costs.
And the maximum amount possible is based on the cost of bringing more housing supply to the market aka the marginal cost.
Which comprises
1) Cost of land per year (which won't change as you'd be paying $10k a year tax rather than $10k a year in interest on the loan taken to buy the land)
2) Cost of building per year (which won't change)
I don't think that logic works because if I'm paying for a loan, I'm not just paying interest, I'm also paying against principal. So in the new, landtax world, I'm building less equity for the same rental cashflow. If I'm thinking of building a unit for rental, I look at all the costs over the next 10-30 years, and all the expected revenue, including eventually owning an asset with some perpetual value. If we have higher taxes in perpetuity then that final asset has lower value and I need to charge more rent to make the same profit in that timespan.
Not to mention that many real estate investors don't use loans, and that the banks giving out loans understand the lack of equity being built and demand higher interest given the inherently lower collateral (greater risk).
You're assuming that the loan repayments of interest plus capital are the same as the land tax. That wouldn't be the case.
Currently the purchase price of the property includes a good deal of future land rent, you just pay the current owner.
If you spend $50k on some land and pay 5% a year you're paying $2500 a year in rent, but you're paying that to the existing owner.
Under an LVT you'd be paying $2500 in rent, but the land itself would cost basically nothing.
Whether it's a loan, or the opportunity cost from not putting the capital elsewhere, doesn't matter.
Land speculators profit from land values increasing, and they do nothing other than gamble. They don't increase the value of their own land, that's what their neighbours do. LVT removes that speculation, and indeed risk. If the area goes downhill (say in Detroit), your taxes lower
The downside of this is if you have taxes funding the government, you end up in a death spiral. That's what the UK has with council tax (which is very regressive, a 10m house in one area can pay less than a 100k flat in another, and even in the same area would only pay about 3 times the price), and I believe it's the case in the US.
That's why I'd rather see a citizens dividend than just cutting taxes.
A transaction can occur if the price is >= the seller's cost, and <= the value to the buyer. If it's at the minimum, the seller must pass on the tax or not trade, at the maximum (down to the max minus the tax) , the seller can't pass on (all of) the tax and still trade. We observe that landlords make profit, so we are not at the minimum. Are we at the maximum?
I think there are cases where we are in between for significant periods of time. Consider a positive shock to wages. Can landlords put up prices overnight? I don't think so, unless the landlords all co-ordinate to do so, prices will be sticky as there are always some properties in the market, so it's difficult to be the first to increase rent. Unlike a purchase, a landlord who waits for a buyer at the right price is forgoing income during the void. So the market price can be a Schelling Point.
A tax increase, however, happens at the same time to all landlords. All of them would prefer to pass it on, and they know that so they can assume all other landlords will try to pass it on. If the rent is currently below the maximum possible, they will succeed.
How long it takes prices to adjust I don't know. It is an empirical question, but I don't know what data would answer it. But it seems like it took decades for landlords to capture the two-income surplus after it became common for women to have a career.
> Rent is a function of supply and demand, not a landlord's costs,
Do you really believe that landlords will subsidize tenants for a long time?
More to the point, if landlords are losing money, why would anyone build rental housing? Instead, why wouldn't they take housing off the market?
> Do you really believe that landlords will subsidize tenants for a long time?
This literally happens all the time in California.
You buy a house in CA. You move somewhere else. You hold on to the house because your property taxes are fixed and housing prices grow like crazy here. Maybe your kids will want it. Maybe you'll want to move back..
You can't charge enough rent to cover the mortgage and taxes os you end up taking a loss monthly.
> otherwise we would expect changes in e.g. mortgage interest costs to be passed on
These aren't a universal cost. When rates change, some landlords' costs go up. But some don't. That lets the latter set the marginal price.
If everyone's costs go up the same amount, it's collusion without communication. In an inelastic market like San Francisco's, you'd expect prices to rise.
If I own £100K worth of land, and the government announces a 1% annual land tax, it's likely the value of my land will fall by about ~25-33% overnight.
If you think that's morally unobjectionable, fine, but I'd love to know what happens when all the landowners who own rural land that doesn't have a profitable development path attached to it can't pay their tax bills. Have the state seize it all?
Or do they just claim it's of negligible value and avoid the tax?
You would sell the development for as much as you can get, regardless of tax. The people buying from you aren't going to pay you more just because the government raised your taxes.
Note that I believe this comment was substantially edited after I replied.
A land tax would effect every single landlord though. Every single landlord would put up rent.
The market will bare it because people have no choice. The choice is homelessness or paying the higher rent.
It's principally the same when mortgage rates rise. Landlords with mortgages put up rent. Only it would be worse, since not all landlords have mortgages.
Do you have data for this? The data I've seen in the past is that landlords are not in aggregate able to pass on mortgage rate increases as rent increases, possibly because their tenants are already squeezed to the limit and there is simply no more money to be had. So when mortgage rates go up rents stay roughly constant and property values go down.
> all the landowners who own rural land that doesn't have a profitable development path attached to it
If it doesn't have a profitable development path attached, the price(and therefore "value") will go down, as will the tax burden.
> Or do they just claim it's of negligible value and avoid the tax?
Property is already taxed based on its assessed value in California.
> can't pay their tax bills
Labour in the UK introduced a 20% inheritance tax on >£2M rural property.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/01/farmers-shoc...
Although the rules were later somewhat changed. Perhaps after pressure due to terminally ill farmers committing suicide (before the tax came into effect so that they could pass on their inheritance).
> Rent is a function of supply and demand, not a landlord's costs
Only in one direction. If that rent, based on supply and demand, does not cover all of the owner's costs (+profit) then that rental property simply disappears off the market. No owner is going to rent out at a loss, so either the renter is paying for all expenses (+profit), or they get kicked out.
I do acknowledge that rent is a function of supply and demand in the big picture, at least. I don't think the whole foundation of economics is wrong.
Demand for apartments will be constant. Supply of apartments will be constant.
But I think what's going on here is that we are way off the equilibrium point. The supply of good places to rent is far outpaced by demand for them, at most price points, and especially so where all the value is (on the coast). So, this means if you're a landlord and you know you'll owe another $1200 tax to Sacramento this year, you should be very confident that if you raise rent by $100 a month, even if an individual tenant would rather move than pay it, someone who can afford $100 more exists and will almost certainly fill that vacancy promptly. It may represent a slight step down in what their buying power would buy. Like, they may have rented a $3000 apartment before, and they'll now rent what used to be a $2900 apartment from you for $3000.
> we would expect changes in e.g. mortgage interest costs to be passed on to
This absolutely happens in the UK where variable interest rates affect more people.
> When landlords' costs drop, do they drop the rent in response?
The price of everything is pretty much a ratchet. They never go down again absent some kind of competitive pressure.
> Rent is a function of supply and demand, not a landlord's costs
Of course it does. The landlord's costs factor into the supply made available by landlords.
> When landlords' costs drop, do they drop the rent in response?
Competition says they do.
Competition is not one thing. For a producer of widgets, competition means that there is immense instantaneous leverage if you can reduce the price, because buyers will switch to you, increasing your market share until your competitor can match - if they can.
A landlord is usually in a different position. If their personal costs drop (eg, they paid off their mortgage) but the market price stays the same, how do they benefit by reducing the price they offer? Only by reducing the time it takes to rent out, which isn't a significant factor in exactly case when tenants would most like rents to go down - when prices are high because of demand.
The details of these mechanisms matter. Market can be out of equilibrium for a long time; maybe indefinitely.
> Market can be out of equilibrium for a long time; maybe indefinitely.
Arbitrage forces say otherwise.
Landlord costs impact supply.
LVT would push up the supply of rental properties by ensuring that property owners who don't rent out their properties or who don't make efficient use of land lose money.
Thats an incentive to rent out the property or sell up to somebody who will.
It would apply harsh market discipline on landlords - a demographic that has usually been rather coddled.
> LVT would push up the supply of rental properties by ensuring that property owners who don't rent out their properties or who don't make efficient use of land lose money.
That doesn't follow. If LVT reduces the net return on rentals, it will disincentivize construction and maintenance of housing in the first place. If it creates a net negative or zero return on property ownership, it may lead to abandoned/undeveloped property instead of housing development, or more property being used for other purposes than housing.
It's also worth pointing out that the existing ad valorem tax system used for property taxes is functionally equivalent to LVT, and does have these influences on the housing market. LVT proposals are distinguished by their being rooted in (fundamentally flawed) Georgist theory, not by being unique as a form of taxation in practice.
A property loses ~30% of its value when rented out and maintenance cost and insurance cost goes up significantly. Plenty of landlords rather have their property be empty and just collect on the equity gains over the years without putting in any effort.
> property owners who don't rent out their properties
The existence of property tax (which on a single house in some areas of the state is upwards of $15,000 a year already) already makes it absolutely ruinous to just sit on an extra house you don't need and not rent it out.
> or who don't make efficient use of land
A little more convincing. Though I suspect most empty land in places where anyone would be willing to live in California, is empty because our insane zoning laws don't allow what would otherwise make sense there (I don't care that it's like what most areas have -- it's insane to have laws that would make it illegal to build a place like San Francisco, Brooklyn, or Boston).
The funny thing about those zoning laws though is that they're held up by a rare case of bipartisanship:
- The MAGA Boomer set who doesn't want any more development near them because "it'll bring traffic" or noise or crime
- And most of the "progressives" who don't want any more development anywhere because "we hate greedy developers" and "Not enough of this proposed development is low-income housing for the government to dole out in lotteries to a few lucky families."
Idk, I’ve seen plenty of houses get torn down and replaced by a $2M house and just sit vacant years until they sell.
15k/2M is 75 basis points. Its definitely profitable to just sit on land especially if you turned it into a parking lot or some other barely improved thing.
On a 2M house the current property tax burden in california is $20,000 a year. More if you have Mello-Roos taxes in that subdivision.
If mortgage expenses go down and property tax expenses go up, it's basically a wash.
But for that to happen, land values need to go down. Landlords need to bid less.
Of housing, but not of land.
Most mortgages are fixed interest. So it makes since that today's rate change doesn't impact a renter cost in the near future. Probably not until the next time the property is sold.
In the US. The majority of the world doesn't have government subsidies on 30 year mortgages
> Rent is a function of supply and demand
Is there really a market dynamic in rent pricing anymore? I thought that algorithmic collusion had eliminated the need for landlords to compete on price.
> I thought that algorithmic collusion had eliminated the need for landlords to compete on price.
What sustains 'algorithmic collusion' in a non-market-clearing situation when landlords ultimately just want to rent their property out?
To put it another way, why would a property owner who has a vacant house leave it unrented in order to benefit other property owners at his own expense?
> I thought that algorithmic collusion had eliminated the need for landlords to compete on price.
Well, that and non-enforcement of antitrust which is a big part of many of our current economic problems.
Massive corporate landlords like Greystar and Morgan Properties own so much of the market they can do a lot of pricing damage even without colluding with others (but of course they do that too).
There's a somewhat non-conglomerate reason though too:
The government, society, municipalities in the US do not build housing. They allow it to be built. Housing is built by developers, who are businesses that insist on making a profit.
So lets say you are one of the only couple of companies that can build a new 100 unit apartment in an area with tight housing supply. Great, you love money, you will look to invest in a development to capture some of that market and make money.
Do you build 100 cheap units for $X and make 5% profit over your planned ROI term, or do you build 100 absurdly upmarket units for $X + 10% dollars and make 10% profit over the same ROI term?
You already know the answer. The normal response is that "All new build is good and will lower price" but no, the rich people buying McMansions and $3000 per month condos in states they haven't ever been to can just absorb far more supply than actual local workers. And, well, they are so fucking rich compared to the average person that they can simply not care about how many of these properties they own, so there isn't downward pressure on them to sell off some of those locations.
The rich are just too rich and can easily outbid the rest of us forever for anything. They are so rich and their marginal value of a dollar is so low that they can happily buy up expensive housing basically for shits and giggles and sit on it and forget they even have it. They own ten properties they never visit. Because they can literally own a property just because they might some day want to visit.
Developers have mostly decided to only serve that clientele because they are so goddamned profitable, because they will negotiate less, will happily pay for box checking features meant to increase the price (like really really bad smart home implementations that they never even experience because they never go to that home). The rich guy who hired my dad to be his general contractor doesn't care what my dad charges and doesn't look at the bill, so my dad abandoned his plan to build 10 houses and instead just lives a relaxing life off of that man's excess, because why the fuck would you do a hundred times the work for less money?
That's one of the reason income inequality on it's own is so bad. Money doesn't work in a linear way, so having 2X the dollars as the next guy is more than 2X as "powerful". The uber rich can just own everything and you have no hope of outbidding or competing. You simply have no other choice than finding what little scraps they ignore.
Capitalism optimizes for best profit per effort. In a society where a tiny percent own the majority of all resources, why would you ever fight for the scraps the little guys have?
Profitable businesses in Portland are being forcibly evicted to be replaced with brand new hotels meant for Executives to visit once a year, all over the area, because providing any service to the uberwealthy is just that much more profitable than providing very necessary service to the average person. It doesn't matter how desperate normal people get, they can't afford to outbid the uberwealthy.
Profitability of renting effects supply. Reducing the profitability of renting reduces supply which, as you noted, increases price.
> Rent is a function of supply and demand, not a landlord's costs
And one of the functions of supply is cost.
Landlord costs drives supply at a given price point so your initial premise is flawed.
This is a prime example of short term thinking, often espoused by politicians.
That cost will, of course, be passed on to renters unless the rental prices cannot be raised at all.
If they can't be raised, and the costs end up being ruinous to the landlords, they will find other solutions like mass arson. That isn't hyperbole; this was a serious problem in the 1970s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_South_Bronx_building_fir...
That was obviously not acceptable... but it was predictable.
All legal proposals should be viewed like a chess move. Presume others will respond, and make sure you're ok with that response. In a sense that's also the point of the original article too, a law was passed without adequqtely thinking through what would happen.
That’s one of the ideas of LVT actually: building apartments in land doesn’t increase tax burden, burning the apartments doesn’t lower it
I actually think there's a lot of positives in land value taxes. However, I was objecting to the phrase "The land value tax can’t be dodged by leaving nor can it be passed on to renters" because that is missing key issues.
Land's assessed value is based on what you could do with it. If can be rented at a profit, that's something you can do with it, and its potential matters. If it can't, then that is no longer a potential value of it.
That doesn't make lvt a bad idea, it's just that I think there's not enough acknowledgement of the trade-offs and limitations.
Burning down an apartment building doesn't change what could be done with the lot; an appropriate valuation method for LVT would not give a different valuation for the land depending on what is built on it.
> Burning down an apartment building doesn't change what could be done with the lot; an appropriate valuation method for LVT would not give a different valuation for the land depending on what is built on it.
True, but an LVT is a cost. Changes in cost can change what is financially viable to do with a property, regardless of what is currently done with the lot, and thus can impact the land value.
Actually no, land value tax is not a marginal cost so does not change the profit maximizing use of land.
The idea of cost-plus pricing is folk economics.
Tax incidence is very well understood in economics and has to do with relative supply and demand elasticity (supply of land is perfectly inelastic) and marginal costs which land value tax does not touch.
It's accurate to say LVT changes the price of land. But it doesn't change the profit maximizing productive use of land.
Other taxes that scale with production (sales tax, income tax, property tax) do change profit maximizing productive use.
And crucially, “rent it for 10 bucks” and “rent it for 20 bucks” are different uses such that the LVT can’t change which is optimal
Feel free to quote in the article what supports your summary given the article doesn't actually talk about that
In fact it mentions insurance fraud as the cause...
Additionally it certainly wasn't increasing cost but reduced income which is a very different issue
Yeah. Arson-induced insurance fraud. Hope this helps.
But that doesn't align with your phrasing above
If landlords can already raise the price of rent, why haven’t they?
>If they can't be raised, and the costs end up being ruinous to the landlords, they will find other solutions like mass arson
Landlords who have their entitlements to land rents or other natural resource rents they've captured ripped away from them would almost assuredly endorse the use of violence.
Land redistribution (of which this is a form) from the landed rentiers to the landless has historically resulted in brutal violence in order to protect their privileged claim on non-human created wealth.
Why shouldn't people's property be protected?
you mean their entitlement to natural non-man made wealth?
> they will find other solutions like mass arson.
Or the more likely option is they will no longer do investment properties as the return it too low vs the risk.
Arson would be irrelevant for land taxes.
It is quite disingenuous to attribute the South Bronx fires as a result of landlords unable to raise rental prices. I mean that is technically true, but your comment makes it sound like it was a result of a particular legal proposal. It was not. It was a period of urban decay in NYC and many cities in the United States. It was the continuation of white flight into suburbs that started in earlier decades. It was a large demographic change with complex causes.
Rents are already as high as renters can bear. If a tax is introduced, you'd expect landlord competition to drive down the landlord margins, not increase rents.
And if margins are decreased, then... (what happens to new supply?)
The supply of land is inelastic. Property developers can't get more land by building more houses on it (and as a corollary, the eventual owner also do not get charged more in taxes).
They can make higher density buildings that generate more income and house more people on the same amount of land.
I don't think this is why it won't get passed on. In theory the lowest income could leave the state and higher income renters would come in.
But in reality a land value tax incentivizes higher density housing. A single house and an apartment complex pay the exact same amount of tax, while the apartment building can split it up over many occupants. Land value taxes are a very natural hands off way of encouraging the right use of land, empty lots and car parks become unaffordable in highly desirable areas while apartments become relatively very cheap.
In theory the land value tax could be set so the overall taxation is the same as before, but but the distribution is such that the people with massive blocks of land in highly desirable areas foot most of the bill. This would over time make housing cheaper over time as more housing is built to reduce the tax burden.
> a land value tax incentivizes higher density housing. A single house and an apartment complex pay the exact same amount of tax, while the apartment building can split it up over many occupants.
That would only be true if the LVT replaced the existing property tax structure, which is not what TFA is calling for.
> In theory the lowest income could leave the state and higher income renters would come in.
Why would a land tax make the state more attractive to higher income renters than where they currently live?
youd think that, but you can fit another 10 people into that studio apartment
the rent is already priced to the maximum of purchasing power of the local renters ability.
if landlords were able to raise rent, they would have done that already as its pure profit for them. The fact that they can't, means they will have to eat any marginal tax imposed on them
The author makes the comment about the land value tax not being able to be passed on to renters in the context of comparing it to a property tax.
If I’m understanding the argument you’re making here correctly, wouldn’t what you’re saying be equally true for a property tax?
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I don’t think the author would agree with your point since I don’t see how your argument could be true for a land tax, but not for a property tax.
costs are irrelevant here, imagine there was no tax hike, but just landlords decided to be greedy.
if they hike rents, whoever is more inelastic will eat the rent increase to the degree of her inelasticity.
the cost increase is shared between renters/landlords in the ratio of their elasticities. Whoever is more inelastic, will eat the cost.
Inealstic renters will pay up increased rent (like techbros in SF are eating up all rent increases).
Elastic renters will get up and move to Texas, if renter swill hike rent.
Elastic landlords will lever down and decrease number of low margin properties like rent-controlled properties, or unprofitable properties.
Inelastic landlords will eat the taxes and take a hit to profitability.
Yeah. I understand the point you’re making, but what I’m saying is that I don’t think that aligns with the authors position.
The author seems to say that costs can be passed on to the renters when the costs are a property tax, but they cannot be passed on when it’s a land tax. That seems like a really odd position to take and it doesn't align with your "costs are irrelevant" statement. I fully admit that I could be missing something, but I don’t understand how it can be true that only certain types of taxes can be passed on to renters.
I fully understand the argument you’re making and I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing with it. It sounds logical, but I frankly don’t know enough about this topic really process it. What I’m saying is that regardless of whether you’re right or wrong, I don’t think your argument is the same one the author is making unless I’m missing something in your argument about why that only applies to land taxes and not property taxes.
> The fact that they can't, means they will have to eat any marginal tax imposed on them
My company rents a space in a commercial lot, and the contract states the property tax is split among the tenants. It's separate from the rent.
Apparently this is common in commercial settings. I wouldn't be surprised to see this start happening for consumers.
some tenants who are on the margin of profitability will decide to close shop/relocate to Texas, which will free up rental space and drive down the prices
Landlords are competing with each other, and renters can take their next best alternative. If everything gets strictly more expensive, the next best alternative is not necessarily any cheaper...
if everyone raises rents by a certain percentage trying to recoup taxes, this will be equivalent of Supply line shifting up by the amount of tax in Economics 101 terms.
From economics we know that increase in cost is split between Landlords/Renters in accordance to their elasticities. Whoever is more elastic - will eat the tax.
the cost increase is shared between renters/landlords in the ratio of their elasticities. Whoever is more inelastic, will eat the cost.
Inealstic renters will pay up increased rent (like techbros in SF are eating up all rent increases).
Elastic renters will get up and move to Texas, if renter swill hike rent.
Elastic landlords will lever down and decrease number of low margin properties like rent-controlled properties, or unprofitable properties.
Inelastic landlords will eat the taxes and take a hit to profitability.
The author probably has a very superficial understanding of economics. It's economics 101, like VAT, the cost will be passed to BOTH the renter and the landlord. The portion of each is dependent on market dynamics and hard to calculate.
>In the instance of perfect elasticity of the demand or perfect inelasticity of the supply, the price will remain the same and the entire tax burden is on producers. An example of perfect inelastic supply curve is unimproved land (the supply of improved land is elastic because more or less could be created by investment in improvements) or crude oil. Thus, the whole tax burden is on landowners and owners of the oil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence
It's literally econ 101 that says landowners will bear the burden of a land value tax.
Supply of land is perfectly inelastic and land value tax is not a marginal cost of production so does not change MR=MC.
renters dont rent land.
renters rent apartments/houses, and these things are very elastic.
the cost increase is shared between renters/landlords in the ratio of their elasticities. Whoever is more inelastic, will eat the cost.
Inealstic renters will pay up increased rent (like techbros in SF are eating up all rent increases).
Elastic renters will get up and move to Texas, if renter swill hike rent.
Elastic landlords will lever down and decrease number of low margin properties like rent-controlled properties, or unprofitable properties.
Inelastic landlords will eat the taxes and take a hit to profitability.
LVT doesn't change the profit maximizing rent of apartments, or the quantity supplied.
You can feel free to solve the profit maximization problem of the apartment owner if you want.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_maximization
if there are apartments on the margin of profitability, the cash outlay of LVT will have impact in either landlords quitting the market or deferring/stopping maintenance and such
Nope. If it was most profitable to quit the market or stop maintenance before LVT, it would be most profitable after.
A conversation with an LLM where you paste this exchange into the context is likely to clear up the reasons for your misconception.
Sounds like the debate from 2 years ago whether the importer or exporter pays for tarrifs
My understanding is that LVT would be lower than current property taxes, so it should be viewed as a tax cut for landlords not an increase.
This is the problem with governments who think they can synthesize value. They think all businesses can too.
If these communists succeed, they will use the very fact that a landlord cannot synthesize money to prove the landlord passed the cost to the tenant and seize the land.
LVT is incoherent, it pretty much only benefits people who are cash rich and land poor. Which is why it gets so much oxygen from tech elites with lots of cash and an inability to buy a house somewhere like mill valley, or wherever.
Essentially taken to the logical conclusion, there will be people competing for more cash to pay their increasing taxes on the same land, it doesn't fundamentally solve the problem. It's such a joke.
It completely solves the problem. I recommend you read “progress and poverty” to get a better understanding of it.
You don’t seem to understand how it works or what it does.
I do understand how it works, are you saying that the zoning will magically be fixed when the taxes go up or the land becomes more exlusive? because I can tell you which one has precedent and which one is wishful thinking.
Yes, zoning does get magically fixed, because the incentives that led to zoning disappear. Under full LVT, owners have an incentive to maximize their land use. Otherwise, they will go bankrupt. So places with zoning more restrictive than land use demands will be underwater financially. Think SFH tract homes in Cupertino. These homeowners have fought viciously to retain SFH zoning. If LVT was imposed 95% of them would be faced with a tax bill they cannot pay. Their only option would be to surrender their land or rezone to allow development of sufficient scale to pay the tax.
It’s not wishful thinking it’s just a fact. Zoning exists because landowners want it. As soon as they don’t want it, it’s gone.
The idea is that valuable land will be utilized better.
"utilized better" in that context just means that the owner of the land can support the taxes on it, it doesn't mean suddenly we are going to put skyscrapers in el cerrito.
It would most definitely lead to densification in SF and its surroundings.
No, you won't have a skyscrapers in some random village in the middle of nowhere. But maybe the land owner, seeing how high is the LVT tax is, decides to build a 5-stories apartment building with 50 units, instead of 5 single family homes. And that's a win.
Wealth taxes are a symptom of a broken tax system. If you let someone get to hundreds of billions in net worth and then realize they haven’t been appropriately paying back into the system, it’s already too late. Like the article says they can simply say “no” in a variety of ways, from fighting in court to simply leaving.
> If you let someone get to hundreds of billions in net worth and then realize they haven’t been appropriately paying back into the system
This is to once again mistake net worth for money. Net worth is not real. It is not a good measure of the money someone may be able to realise. They do not have hundreds of billions. There is nothing to tax until they sell some shares.
It's strange that people always make this argument for wealth taxes, but you rarely hear it about property taxes. If "net worth is not real" neither is equity in real estate.
People absolutely make that argument about property taxes. That's where deferrals or abatements for e.g. elderly or low-income homeowners, or caps on property tax increases come from. Someone may own a home that property taxes price them out of, forcing them to leave their community because they can't actually conjure money from a higher priced home.
I think a lot of tax authorities also don't really aggressively reassess that regularly without a sale, so it also kind of ends up baked in that if you didn't pay that much for the property, it's only theoretically worth that much.
Predatory property taxes were a part of how so many black American farmers lost their land: https://archive.is/exkhR
Their fault for not developing it to it's highest and best use so they could afford to pay the taxes /s
This is all conceding the argument already. Many of us would happily accept these sorts of limitations on a wealth tax if it means there is a wealth tax.
The only reason it works with real estate is because they can put a lien on the house and block the sale of it. They don't have any useful mechanism to stop the sale of a share of stock, but since the government is involved in the transfer (due to the registering of the new house deed) of a house, they can stop that one.
> They don't have any useful mechanism to stop the sale of a share of stock
The SEC exists. As do many other mechanisms by which the government regulates direct and brokered securities trades and sales. You can make the case that some of those controls are poorly/ineffectively implemented, but you can’t claim that it’s not something the government routinely regulates, intervenes in, and sometimes prohibits outright.
Society has deemed it "ok" for a real estate transaction to take days or weeks to process and mountains of paperwork, probably because it is done so rarely in an average person's life. But stock trades are expected to be done quickly in minutes or even milliseconds with high frequency trading. It just isn't feasible to inject government paperwork in the middle of a transaction. Wall Street would revolt if they even tried.
Nah. Look up the SEC’s reporting requirements, specifically form 4. The paperwork requirement already exists.
https://www.sec.gov/files/forms-3-4-5.pdf
Here are Musk’s. https://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1494730.htm
its perfectly feasible.
high frequency traders dont have a right to a business model.
if they want faster trades, they can take full liability for what they own
The main reason real estate taxes work so well is that tax evasion is very difficult.
Because the building is standing right where it is, in the open, lit by the sun every day. If you don't pay your tax, the government can just take it.
This compensates for the several philosophical and moral problems with it, and I've seen several economists declare it the best form of taxation there is.
Why can't govt block the sale of stocks? It's not like you would be selling non digitalized assets, govts often freeze and reverse stock sales/trades when they find it to be illegal already.
It's harder for private companies sure, but who will stand in the way of govts if they said we will sanction your if you buy X or Y company?
This entire argument doesn't really hold IMHO
Exactly... that's why sales tax and VAT don't exist anywhere -- because there's no way to stop the purchase of goods or services.
This type of low-hanging sarcastic rebuttal doesn't belong here
My comment provided a clear and succinct rebuttal to a flawed argument.
Your comment added literally no value except to whine.
Try holding yourself to at _least_ as high of standards as you hold others. People will be less likely to think you're a worthless asshole.
I feel like there's think tanks thinking up talking points that sound reasonable to convince internet communities against taxing the wealthy.
It's the opposite. You've been drip-fed "billionaires cause all the problems" for a few years, and now, as you say, you feel all sorts of things about them, which can rationalise all sorts of bad ideas.
Wealth inequality is worse than any other time in human history. What the wealthy and powerful are funding is division, fascism, the far-right and immigrant hate, so that they don't have to pay more taxes. It's the same divide and rule playbook since forever.
I disagree with you on what is being drip-fed. It's factual that deranged levels of wealth inequality are causing problems, even the billionaire wannabes on HN are starting to see that.
> Wealth inequality is worse than any other time in human history
And humans are wealthier than any time in history. They have access to robot slaves that can wash dishes and clothes for them. They can access fruits grown over 1000 miles away for 69c. They have potions that can cure cancer. They have the database of all human intelligence in their pocket, accessible from anywhere on the globe. They have individualized transportation that can travel over 2 miles a minute. They have super intelligent thinking machines for cents.
Life has never been better for mankind.
A big proportion of Americans are struggling to make ends meet on a fulltime wage. No amount of luxuries make up for a lack of necessities. Your argument might have had a smidge of credibility 15 years ago.
That's just the consequence of various other policies that a lot of them probably voted for (or didn't vote against hard enough). If you transform a country a certain way, promising more and more from the government for some people, then everyone else has to pay more. If you pay for it with ZIRP, then you're going to need to pay it back.
The last thing you should do at that point is vote for more policies that will destroy economic activity in the name of "fairness". That's how you got here.
> Wealth inequality is worse than any other time in human history
This is circular. Wealth inequality:
1. Isn't real. It's a paper value that would not survive contact with reality.
2. Doesn't matter. What matters is the absolute level of poverty and whether that's getting better. Someone in poverty in the UK today will still get healthcare, eyecare and dental care beyond the dreams of Henry VIII.
3. Is genuinely a stupid measure. You could "fix" it by burning everyone's possessions until everyone has the same: nothing. Zero inequality, and yet somehow doesn't sound great.
> What the wealthy and powerful are funding is division, fascism, the far-right and immigrant hate, so that they don't have to pay more taxes. It's the same divide and rule playbook since forever.
This is just your media consumption showing.
Absolutely real when Musk can tilt elections in America and fund far right parties in other countries. Your whole “paper wealth” argument holds no weight.
He didn't have to tilt anything in America. The Democrats ran the worst platform in living memory for the 2024 election, and the sooner they stop blaming billionaires for everything and start looking at themselves to improve the sooner they will get back the popular vote.
Whether he had to or not makes no difference. He did, that’s what matters
So did many other people. Any popular podcast will do that. Any media organisation has editorial bias, either in story presentation or even in selection. I don't see why Elon Musk would be singled out there, other than he's an ex-Democrat, and thus like all the ex-Democrats is a target of constant negative mentioning in a lot of one side's media.
It's interesting to see the level of discourse change across time as these same points are brought up again and again.
It seems there are many many more people heavily invested in preventing land tax all of a sudden and are very informed whereas when that guy made a land tax visualizer a few months ago... crickets.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45425770
> but I struggle to even conceptualize what land value means
One of the first comments. Now there are dozens of people who are suddenly well versed in "georgeism"?
Narrative control and algorithm driven propaganda is evident - Most people scrolling any kind of algorithmic feed would be shocked at the intimate detail the algorithm knows their mind, proclivities, aversions.
Another evident thing is that people will start retreating from the internet as this gets worse (With LLMs accelerating the trend).
If I sell my house, there's a reasonable expected range of money I can expect for it.
If a majority stock holder in a company sells all of their stock, the price first the first share sold is likely going to be completely different (and substantially less!) than the last share sold.
"It's difficult to accurately value" isn't an argument against taxing net worth. It's like the old (likely apocryphal) Winston Churchill joke, "We already established what type of woman you are, now we are just haggling over price". Just take whatever the proposal is, cut in half, quarter, or whatever fraction you want and you no longer have an argument against it.
Personally my favorite idea for this stuff that I have heard thrown around is to allow people to self value everything. However, that self valuation then becomes a price tag. Let a billionaire's accountants put their own evaluation on their equity in a business. But that becomes a binding offer and some other billionaire could come along and buy them out at that valuation. That creates pricing pressure in both directions, the person is prevented from underpricing their assets due to the threat of another buyer coming in and a person is prevented from overpricing because it increases their taxes. And suddenly all the problems regarding how the government appraises these things disappears.
Forcing people to write a call option on their property without an offsetting risk premium only sounds like a good idea if you neither understand the implications nor the math. Asset values would collapse because risk would go to the moon.
And that ignores that it trivially enables large-scale exploitation and looting by construction.
>without an offsetting risk premium
Once again, this is simply haggling over price. Name the premium you think is justified and add that into the law.
The market determines the risk, not the asset owner. The owner has no special knowledge of what the risk actually is separate from the market pricing it. You explicitly want them to accurately price it outside of a market, which is effectively impossible, ignoring that the price is highly fluid and dynamic.
If the owner is required to invent a fake risk premium then it virtually guarantees that the risk will be mis-priced. Forced rampant mis-pricing is an exploitable arbitrage opportunity of epic proportions. Every quant worth a damn will make a fortune looting this. No serious policy can ignore this defect. It has the additional political downside that no one can ever own anything anymore in a meaningful way, which won’t be popular.
No one takes this idea seriously because anyone with a modicum of finance math background can see that the math doesn’t math. Political ideology doesn’t even figure into it.
I'm getting the impression you didn't get my "haggling over price" reference. This conversation is in the context of a wealth tax which typically only applies to a very select group of incredibly wealthy people. However, your complaints are all about the scale of the economic problems this would create. That means we can continue to add restrictions to this proposal until eventually all the issues you raised disappear.
For example, imagine we only apply this to people with a net worth over $500B. That's literally only Elon Musk. He has plenty of money to hire his own team of quants to price his assets. We can even be generous with this law and make the purchase price double the valuation. Hell, we can even restrict it to only apply to stock of publicly traded companies so the wealth valuations are highly informed by market pricing. We can just keep adding rules like this until you're out of economic reasons for why a wealth tax and/or this form of valuation can't work. At that point the debate is lost and "we're just haggling over price" because once we apply it to Musk, how can you argue against applying it to Bezos...
I don't get it. What if the person doesn't want to sell at all? Self-value at +inf and pay 1% of that?
Society has already decided that we can compel people to sell their private property for fair compensation via eminent domain. Plus getting the assets in the hands of people who value them more certainly creates utility and presumably increases the tax base via further development.
This type of forced sale happens all the time with public companies. For example, only like 60% of Twitter shareholders approved the sale to Musk, but the other 40% were forced to go along with it regardless of their preference. If Musk can do that to other people, why should some hypothetically richer person not be able to do it to Musk?
And to repeat myself for a third time, we don't need to haggle over price. If we only want this to apply to billionaires, assets worth $50 million, or whatever, that's fine. If one of the people impacted truly doesn't want to sell, let them set the price as high as makes them feel safe. I'm not going to lose any sleep over taxing the emotional desires of billionaires.
> For example, only like 60% of Twitter shareholders approved the sale to Musk, but the other 40% were forced to go along with it regardless of their preference
They signed up to that, though. Tagalonpg/dragalong rights are priced into the share price. That's not the same thing.
I always enjoy when someone takes a quote out of context to refute something I said when the context it was said in completely answers them. Like why didn't you include the sentence before that bit you quoted? Is it because me saying "this type of sale" shows that I was saying they are similar rather than identical? Or why didn't you include my first paragraph? Is it because eminent domain is also priced into everything a billionaire owns?
Property taxes are use taxes, not wealth taxes. Apples and oranges.
> It's strange that people always make this argument for wealth taxes, but you rarely hear it about property taxes.
I don't like property taxes either, and at minimum would rather they were called something else, and preferably replaced with per-service charges where possible.
But either way they exist to pay for things, and not to just degrade the value of your property simply because you worked to own it.
It's like saying cash isn't real until you spend it. Which is true in one sense but not what they mean.
The actual mistake is pretending like they can't leverage those shares to access fiat, for example securities-backed loans. The proceeds aren't taxable income, the bank gets its interest, and the latter is typically substantially cheaper than realizing the shares and paying capital gains tax. Meanwhile, they keep the assets, which on average continue appreciating.
The obvious correct solution is to tax securities-backed loans the same as selling the securities.
Security backed loans for what though? Personal spending? Building a factory to great jobs?
> "Security backed loans for what though? Personal spending? Building a factory to great jobs?"
Income for what though? Personal spending? Building a factory to great jobs?
Capital gains for what though? Personal spending? Building a factory to great jobs?
Property for what though? Personal spending? Building a factory to great jobs?
Inheritance for what though? Personal spending? Building a factory to great jobs?
What a strange question.
Interest income is already taxed. You want to tax both sides? Why?
no more obvious than taxing against the whole value of the asset rather than just the loan.
I'm confused. You think it's better to tax the money you didn't get rather than the money you did get?
>security backed loans
Which currently require interest payments of ~6-8% APR. Meaning that you need to be able to invest that money that is being borrowed back into the economy to hopefully get a return more than that. And if your investment fails you will have to realize a different investment. The interest being paid doesn't get hoarded either and is used to make other investments, pay employees, build products, etc.
The idea that a bunch of people are just hoarding their money and not reinvesting it back into the system is flawed. Taxes actually have the opposite effect to contributing to the system. Taxes are like if someone was to come and start hoarding money under their mattress for himself and not contribute back to society.
https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/investing/investment-strat...
It's funny that their case study ignores how much wealth you lose from the interest on the loans. If you pay $140k of interest you can avoid $62k of taxes.
I don't know what point you were trying to get across with your link, so I gave my general thoughts on the article.
Maybe we should tax your mortgage, too!
> There is nothing to tax until they sell some shares.
That's tautological. I mean, it's true under current federal tax law. It's obviously not true under new California law, which is what the article is about.
Clearly the government can tax non-cash assets, and they do all the time. People act like "wealth taxes" are some moral horror or logical impossibility, while tossing their mortgage statement into a big file and pretending to ignore the property tax line on the escrow account.
Are there practical problems like "wealth has feet"? Sure. Taxation is hard and all systems can be gamed. But let's not pretend that there's a greater principle at work here.
Just wait until you find out what $20b in necessarily liquidations does to Meta's stock price and your S&P500 ETF.
Did you have to liquidate your house to pay the property tax on it?
Edit to point out a subtlety: this is an argument at cross purposes. If the economic impact of all this personal wealth growth is so high that liquidating it would move whole markets, then very clearly it represents significant missed tax revenue.
They play a clever little game where they borrow against those shares to live on. Since there’s no realized gain, there’s no income (and the interest is deductible against any incidental gains that might happen along the line). Then when they die, the sale of shares to pay off the loan is a non-taxable event and the estate value is reduced so the heirs won’t pay as much (or any) estate tax.
> They play a clever little game where they borrow against those shares to live on
Yes, everyone in the US can play the same clever little game by taking out a loan against a property and deducting the interest against their income.
> and the estate value is reduced so the heirs won’t pay as much (or any) estate tax
This is just madness. The estate value is reduced so their heirs won't get as much. You still pay inheritance tax on what you get. Anyone can avoid inheritance tax by just not passing anything on.
That’s just a decision we made about what is taxable.
Purely an accounting artifact. We can pass a wealth tax tomorrow and it’ll suddenly be taxable.
Net worth is real money, and is usually a very accurate measure of what people can realize. There are a few outliers who own so much that they’d move the market if they sold it all. Selling 2% to cover taxes? Not going to move the market very much.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution would like a word (assuming you’re contemplating a federal wealth tax; states could do it, at the risk expressed in the headline of the article we’re discussing).
That’s a law my dude. We can change it at any time. We did already for the income tax (amendment 16).
Yes, that’s exactly my point.
That is what makes the timeline GGP laid out impossible:
> We can pass a wealth tax tomorrow and it’ll suddenly be taxable.
Unless we don’t share a common definition of “tomorrow” or “suddenly”. (For reference, the 16th Amendment process took about 3 years and 7½ months from Senator Norris Brown’s initial formal proposal to ratification by the then-necessary 36th state. [You would need 38 states today.])
OK I think you might be reading this a bit too literally. The dangers of online discourse.
The point is that we can do it if we want to.
Maybe. If my complaint was "tomorrow is Saturday, you can't pass it on a Saturday, duh...", then yeah, I'd absolutely be reading "tomorrow" and "suddenly" too literally.
When you meant "shortly before Memorial Day of 2030", it's not clear that 51% of the misunderstanding is on the reader.
Another thing with taxing unrealized gains is that no one in the government is willing to return any money if the unrealized losses happened. Somehow it's all hunky-dory when someone loses 1M in stock value, but as soon as someone's stock went up 1M they all want to tax it right away.
> There is nothing to tax until they sell some shares.
This is a very strange claim when we have property taxes. Shares are property so they can be taxed just like houses and land.
Try this - go to a bank and say “I’d like to borrow money using my 401k/Roth IRA as collateral. If I fall behind in payments you can liquidate the entire thing, including penalties, and make yourself whole.”
You’d think they’d jump over each other to lend money against such a stable, secure asset right?
Except they’ll say “sorry, this isn’t allowed. IRS treats borrowing against an untaxed retirement account as an early withdrawal, even if the asset itself stays untouched.”
Turns out the government fully understands the concepts of stocks, gains, unrealized net worth and more, and has laws on the books to make sure you are being taxed appropriately for them.
Meanwhile billionaires have convinced you – through their machinery of media, influencers, politicians and more – that this exact same reasoning absolutely cannot be applied to their own wealth. Because it’s “paper money”. It doesn’t exist. There’s nothing to tax. Just cannot be done, or it’ll bend the laws of spacetime.
Your 401k/Roth IRA (subtracting early withdrawal penalty) amortized over the loan period literally do count when considering qualifying income for a conventional mortgage. This is not a taxable event. You do not actually have to make distributions. It's just standard procedure that it counts when determining whether you can pay the loan.
You misunderstood. The discussion was not about income qualifications for a loan but about collateral.
> Meanwhile billionaires have convinced you – through their machinery of media, influencers, politicians and more – that this exact same reasoning absolutely cannot be applied to their own wealth.
Quite the opposite: Socialist politicans and their media lapdogs have dishonestly convinced you that wealthy people are escaping taxes en-masse by taking out loans and that this can only be stopped by eye watering wealth taxes. They frequently use a motte and bailey confusing unrealized gains (which certainly exist in huge amounts but are also significantly fiction) with tax escape via loans collateralized by securities.
But it's not true: were there meaningful tax escape that way it could be addressed by establishing rules with conditions where taking a loan against securities can be treated as realizing gains (and adjusting cost basis accordingly). Doing so would be minimally disruptive and distorting and have relatively little legal complication (at least compared to wealth taxes!).
But the reality is that the claimed tax escape isn't happening (at least not at any significant scale) particularly in the current interest rate environment, so a reasonable policy change to address it would be a no-op.
... and to grow and maintain their political standing they specifically need to push a NON-SOLUTION because they can't campaign on something that was simply done and solved, and to retain your (highly monetizable) attention they need to rile you up against an Enemy, and certainly never address the state's addiction to wasteful spending and buying votes with tax dollars as one half of the revenue vs expenses equation.
I can't tell if you're accusing the state of waste and bribes no matter who is at the helm. You did specifically call out socialists, but the anti-socialists aren't improving that situation either.
> buying votes with tax dollars
This was more convincing of an attack on "Socialist politicians" before Sept. 9, when Trump did it more openly than they ever have. I guess you could believe his claims it won't come from tax dollars. But if the government has $1 trillion lying around for this and chooses not to unconditionally lower taxes for everybody, is it any different?
The head of the anti-socialist, anti-wasteful-spending party is spending billions on a more impressive Air Force One, golf days, family vacations, vanity renovations, DHS ads starring a POTUS wannabe, DOGE effectively paying people not to work, etc.
Everyone is guilty of it, just generally in their own form-- partisan nonsense is largely a distraction to get people mad at the other team and not notice their allies also picking your pocket. Though sure there are some particular ways different parties divide us and pilfer, bad in their own way.
wealth taxes solve the problem that the ultra-wealthy will find a way to make their income untaxable, and focusing on these loans is a red herring. its how theyre doing it now, but not how theyll do it an hour after you add this tax. That the ultra-wealthy propose this as the solution means theyve already planned the next work around.
they dislike wealth taxes, which are an old roman concept predating socialism, because the wealth tax covers all the work arounds they can think of.
it is a proper solution to the overall problem which is extreme wealth concentration.
the obvious alternative is nationalization of all assets worth more than 100M.
DOGE has pretty conclusively proved that the government has been incredibly efficient with spending and doesnt have an addiction to wasteful spending. instead the problem is wasteful monopolization and wealth concentration. society writ large has an addiction to giving a small cadre too much power and control, and they arent the government
Elon Musk paid $11bn in tax in 2021[0]. How much tax are you paying that you're looking at that and thinking the wealthy barely pay any tax?
[0] https://factually.co/fact-checks/business/did-elon-pay-11b-i...
Incredibly terrible example because you are allowed to borrow money against a 401k, up to $50000 with no penalties as long as you pay yourself back at whatever schedule you have determined for yourself
Is Larry page borrowing “up to $50000”?
No but he’s also not borrowing against his 401k? You and I can also go and borrow against stocks held in regular accounts? https://us.etrade.com/bank/line-of-credit
Does Larry Page’s brokerage account pay no taxes on dividends like a 401(k)?
You are ignoring the most common approach, borrow against the asset. In that case the sufficient assets turn into essentially unlimited untaxed cashflow. Especially with how the market has been lately, the gains erase any burden of the loan. Sounds like a broken tax system to me.
So why isn't the suggestion to tax the loan instead of the asset (that is 10x more volatile than say property)?
That may be a perfectly viable solution. Seems like an easier path to me, at least. But the point is that these assets are a lot more fungible than you imply.
> It is not a good measure of the money someone may be able to realise.
And as such, when you get into the higher ranges, net worth is quite a good indicator.
I think it’s exactly at the higher ranges that you are more likely to run into concentrated positions where valuations are not simply a total value multiplied by a percentage ownership.
What is Cargill “worth”? Suppose the families announced they were selling 90% of it on Monday. Would they get that figure?
What is Jensen Huang’s share of nVidia worth? If he announced he was selling all of in October, why would he not end up with that figure?
It’s quite different for a bank to lend Jensen (or Larry Ellison or Elon) 5% of that notional figure. They don’t need to care whether the true value is 30% or 50% of the notional to make that loan.
Don't overlook the fact that the borrower pays interest on the loan.
> Especially with how the market has been lately, the gains erase any burden of the loan.
And when the market goes down, you get a margin call and get wiped out.
>into essentially unlimited untaxed cashflow
Loans must be paid back. Loans are cash flow neutral (cash flow negative with interest) over the maturity. That's why loans are not counted as income.
In theory, maybe, but in practice that is not what happened over the past decade(s). Instead our retirement funds are paying it back.
When the market grows it makes the collateral worth more, which lets the borrower keep refinancing the debt instead of selling assets and realizing taxable gains. As long as the assets appreciate faster than the debt grows, the borrowing can effectively roll forward for decades. Eventually the estate pays the debt out of the assets themselves, but this is not necessarily out of taxable income earned during the person's lifetime. The US markets has seen exceptional genuine growth, but the trillions of 401(k), IRA, etc money flowing in to them over the last 40 years is no small consideration.
And even so, you could say it all settles out in the end, but that ignores the fact that there have constant constant efforts (and successes) in eroding away the e̶s̶t̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶t̶a̶x̶ "death tax" during this same period.
Eventually, the loan gets paid back, one way or another. There's no escape from it.
However, the bank is happy to extend the loan infinitely for people with enough assets. It's questionable that whether such loans are cash flow neutral.
>However, the bank is happy to extend the loan infinitely for people with enough assets.
Long maturity products still have to be repaid. There are no "infinite" maturity loan products for retail customers.
>It's questionable that whether such loans are cash flow neutral.
There's zero question: loans are cash flow negative (for customers) with interest. Banks are not going to offer products that are not cash flow positive for the bank.
What evidence do you have that people borrow against assets as some tax avoidance strategy? What are the details of this brilliant, often repeated plan? In particular, where do you get interest rates that are low enough to make it worth it to avoid capital gains even with an asset that's grown 100x over its cost basis (and are you accounting for reinvestment of income like dividends that can't indefinitely defer taxes, creating regular tax lots with higher basis that you could sell first)? e.g. are they getting better interest than SOFR somewhere?
The framing was slightly glib, and you're correct that current rates impacts the equation, but there has been real damage caused by how extremely attractive this strategy has been over the past decade. We sitting on an unprecedented peace time deficit due to a failure to properly tax an economy that has been massively prosperous during this same period. This strategy is small part of it, but it is a real part.
It wasn't extremely attractive if you actually think it through. e.g. if rates are lower and you're willing to carry investments with leverage (that's the idea, right? Your investments will grow faster than interest?), why aren't you already leveraged up to your risk tolerance? I don't think there's actually a world where this plan works. It seems like this is a reddit meme for people who have never actually considered a securities loan.
> Net worth is not real.
Well then why are people able to borrow against it and then also deduct taxes on the interest on that borrowed amount?
Also I pay property taxes. Somehow the worth of the property goes up every year and gets gets taxed accordingly. Then why can’t wealth get the same treatment?
> Well then why are people able to borrow against it and then also deduct taxes on the interest on that borrowed amount?
I doubt they can borrow against the full amount of it, because that changes. They'll be borrowing against a much smaller value, so the lender has a safety margin. Same as if you have a mortgage you pay less interest the less you borrow vs the value of your house, except I imagine it will be far more conservative.
> Also I pay property taxes. Somehow the worth of the property goes up every year and gets gets taxed accordingly. Then why can’t wealth get the same treatment?
Well, three things.
Firstly, as an aside, it's incredible that you would want this. That is a bad system. You should get taxed according to the services you consume, along with a flat rate for common services, rather than punished with taxes for daring to spend money on improving your house.
Secondly, "wealth" is far less tangible than property prices. Property prices are very well understood. A share price can fluctuate wildly, and saying "well your net worth for today is the number of shares you have times the last share sale price" is just a terrible measure.
Thirdly, what will those shares be worth to sell when they are taxed? Investing is a gamble. Housing is different: we need housing to live, and we want a nice house. No one wants shares. They want a return, and for it they'll stump up a giant amount of money, that will fund many jobs for years, and generate lots of taxes, and who will want to do that when their share will be eroded year on year? There's no benefit to shares except the return. Decreasing the return will have a direct impact on innovation and jobs.
Yeah, it's all illiquid illusory non-wealth when they have to pay taxes, but when they want to buy a newspaper or social network they suddenly have 40 billion in hand.
Forced liquidation hurts more than the sticker price, but with billionaire taxes, that's a feature, not a bug. They make the most sense as a check on concentrated power rather than a revenue driver.
> Yeah, it's all illiquid illusory non-wealth when they have to pay taxes, but when they want to buy a newspaper or social network they suddenly have 40 billion in hand.
Yes, businesses are allowed to buy and sell things without being taxed on the sales. If you want to change that rule, you are going to change a giant number of things purely to get at the billionaires you've spent the last few years being trained to hate.
> Forced liquidation hurts more than the sticker price, but with billionaire taxes, that's a feature, not a bug. They make the most sense as a check on concentrated power rather than a revenue driver.
It's missing the planetwide jungle for the trees if you think giving politicians the ability to reach into ownership percentages of businesses and deciding how much they want to charge you for owning a business is a check on power.
I’d be willing to take some of the “not real” money.
There is absolutely no reason that unrealised gains cannot be taxed (and some tax systems do indeed tax them in various ways).
Except that would trigger a massive reduction in investment, which would be very damaging to the economy.
Why? What are they going to do with the money instead? If you charge, say, 5% on unrealised gains, possibly discountable against CGT on sale, say, then do you think rich people are really going to go "well, now I'm only getting 9.5% return instead of 10% return, so I'm going to sell all my shares and build a Scrooge McDuck style swimming pool full of money, instead"?
There are cases where taxes can hurt investment, but you're really talking about quite high rates. For instance, the US peak rate of income tax used to be 94%. That almost certainly _did_ hurt investment.
Such taxes will make marginal businesses go out of businesses, and turn otherwise modestly profitable businesses into marginal ones.
... Wait, how would a tax on unrealised capital gains make marginal businesses go out of business? Like, what scenario are you thinking about here?
that net worth is still power, which is even more valuable than money.
if you are claiming the high net worth, almost certainly you have raised significant actual money on things you own. a wealth tax means that if you dont actually think your business is worth a billion, you cant raise money as if it was.
thays a net good thing.
if peter theil is lying about being rich and he only has a couple hundred thousand bucks to his name, the publiv overall deserves to know, and it should cost him quite a lot to raise or borrow money.
these people are commiting fraud and should be forced into texas prisons without AC because theyre lying to banks about the value of their assets, and the bankers too beed to go to those same prisons because theyre defrauding their depositors.
this is only a good thing for routing how whos lying about their worth
> There is nothing to tax until they sell some shares.
Why can't they pay tax in shares?* If net worth isn't real it shouldn't really matter...right?
*Please no pedantry about how the IRS doesn't currently accept shares as payment for taxes. If laws can be written to add wealth taxes on stocks and bonds, they can easily have a clause to allow payment in kind. Address the question I'm actually asking.
I hate this argument.
Would you rather have 1M dollars in cash or 10B in stock that you can't sell?
Depends -- can I use the 10B as collateral?
You can do it today. Start a company, issue ten billion and one shares to yourself and convince someone to buy one of them for a dollar. Now enjoy your net worth-based tax bill.
> Net worth is not real.
Good way to find out it this is the case: take it away. Not real, right? Why would they mind?
> Good way to find out it this is the case: take it away. Not real, right? Why would they mind?
Take what away? I'm saying if I own 51% of Tesla, you cannot tell what amount of money that amounts to until I sell it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%24TSLA
C'mon, man. We know Musk's net worth. It's public knowledge!
>We know Musk's net worth
No we don't.
>It's public knowledge!
No it's not. We estimate his net worth based on public filings. We know next to nothing about his nonpublic holdings.
It has its own Wikipedia article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_of_Elon_Musk
That the estimates vary a bit on the edges doesn't mean they've no value. It was public knowledge when his net worth confirmably hit a trillion dollars in share holdings.
From your own linked source: "with an estimated net worth of US$942 billion."
"with an estimated"
You made my point for me, thank you.
>That the estimates vary a bit on the edges
We don't know that. It could vary widely, intra-day even.
>doesn't mean they've no value.
I did not make this claim.
>It was public knowledge when his net worth confirmably hit a trillion dollars in share holdings.
It was "public knowledge" when his estimated net worth hit a trillion.
> You made my point for me, thank you.
If your point is "we can't tax people because estimates aren't perfect", sure. But it's a silly point. We already tax people off estimates - if you own a house, your property taxes are assessed in exactly this fashion - an estimate of its value.
> It was "public knowledge" when his estimated net worth hit a trillion.
No. It was public knowledge when his known numbers of shares in his publicly traded companies reached a known price point.
>If your point
Don't try to deflect or move the goalposts. My point is you stated "we know Musk's net worth" when we don't. This is a false claim.
>No
Yes.
>It was public knowledge when his known numbers of shares in his publicly traded companies reached a known price point.
An estimate based on the valuation of his publically known stakes at a specific point in time, not his net worth.
There is no way to take anything like that. Net worth is quite similar with me saying you are worth 1 billion dollars, but you have zero money in the bank. What do you take, super-rich billionaire person?
The net worth is simply the sum of assets minus the sum of liabilities. Take away the assets and you take away the net worth. I can't think of an asset category that you can't transfer if you are willing to sacrifice its value (which presumably doesn't matter, because it's not real anyways)
In the rare cases where contract law makes the transfer impossible legally the government could trivially step in to make it possible
You take control of the shares and distribute the proceeds and make it impossible to leverage them for loans, credit etc.
Is it Zuck's networth or salary that makes it possible for him to own his ranch in Hawaii?
which thing of mine are you saying is worth a billion dollars? the lawnmower? take that then?
whats the complication? if its not worth anything whos gonna worry, especially if the government then compensates you in dollars
Your 1 billion dollar dog that will die 2 days after someone takes it from you. Tax that, please.
Why not? Net worth is the estimated sell value of a list of assets. It is entirely possible to take those assets, or charge a tax based on that estimated sell value. Why would it even be a little difficult, let alone impossible?
And certainly ceejayoz was being a bit glib by suggesting we take all of it, but it would not be remotely insurmountable to tax billionaire wealth.
Net worth is the estimated value, not sell value. For example, Tesla shares owned by Elon don't have the same value if Elon is leaving, they are less worthy.
> For example, Tesla shares owned by Elon don't have the same value if Elon is leaving, they are less worthy.
This is, ironically, more of a guess/estimate than determining Musk's net worth is. We don't actually know that!
Because that would involve seizing assets? The parent meant it's not "real" in the simple-minded sense that people think it is: the average person imagines Elon Musk and other billionaires have a checking account that keeps increasing by tens of thousands of dollars per second because that's the only frame of reference they have. The reality is the wealth is mostly tied up in assets that ain't exactly liquid. Yes yes, they apparently have access to this supposed infinite money glitch where banks will endlessly loan them money without requiring interest payments (which would require liquidating assets for payment and therefore triggering a taxable event, the very thing people think never happens for billionaires). But the fact of the matter is the wealth isn't money in a bank, and therefore not "real" in the sense the parent was referring to. But it is at the same time something they would miss if it was just "taken away", much the same way you'd miss the numbers in your 401k if voters decided you had a few too many millions saved up for retirement.
the government seizes dollars in the form of taxes, which are still assets, no?
these other assets like musk's stocks are still quite divisible, and theyre as liquid as the government wants them to be. just because musk hasnt written the liquidity into his government sponsored contracts doesnt mean the government cant say yes, 10% of your private spaceX stock is liquid and belongs to donald trump now
its real and thus it is taxable
No, dollars are not assets.
> Because that would involve seizing assets?
Oh, are those real now?
Assets are real, but not the valuation of them. This sort of basic error, which seems to only appear on the "tax net worth" side, is good evidence that this is not a reasoned position, and thus you will not be reasoned out of it.
> Assets are real, but not the valuation of them.
Valuing assets is a routine, widespread thing.
You can't just handwave away the fact that the real world exists.
Not when it comes to share prices. Share prices change all the time. Why would they if we could value them perfectly? Just think about it a little.
What asset's value doesn't change?
A painting can be valued. A vintage car can be valued. A movie script can be valued. My house's value changed a bunch during COVID; I'm still taxed on it! Each is an asset; none of these examples can be perfectly valuated; each may see its value change dramatically over time, but you can still estimate its worth pretty well.
Hell, I can put my house address on Zillow and get an estimate in real time.
Nah, just make them pay taxes when it's valued as collateral and it's over a certain amount. Anyone saying you can't do that is lying to you.
I dont know why it's so complicated to just say "Money is Money when it's Liquid, tax it then". Any loans on wealth should be taxed..nationwide.
But even in California's case this doesn't feel like anything anybody would object to. Given how much California Billionaires liquidate using loans on their wealth, I bet, they could do a middle class tax cut too to offset it a little bit too.
I am little baffled as to why the politicos haven't latched on to this whole-heartedly. You can still proudly say you're taxing Billionaire wealth. Because you are! Just more sensibly.
You will find that the centi-billionaires will find a different way to turn their illiquid wealth into personal power and value in a way that avoids that tax.
Simply let them pay the tax with shares. Problem solved!
Well one thing is, they'd sell shares to pay the taxes. Then dilute their own ownership of the thing (Tesla, Amazon) and it would serve as another form of wealth distribution.
Charitably speaking: I suspect the commenter above you was indicating that the government should have a stock portfolio you can transfer stocks to to pay taxes in a non-taxable event type scenerio.
If you're taxing wealth (and not income) then switching stocks into cash doesn't change the wealth. Then use the cash to pay the taxes which reduces the wealth.
I believe the argument was that for some people, switching stocks into cash actually do change the wealth, because they own such a large % they are meaningfully moving the market by selling (the "paper money" argument).
And the answer to that was "if you're so afraid that selling will tank the value of the stock, then we [the government] will happily take your taxes as stocks directly, and we take on the risk that selling it will reduce its value".
> And the answer to that was "if you're so afraid that selling will tank the value of the stock, then we [the government] will happily take your taxes as stocks directly, and we take on the risk that selling it will reduce its value".
Yes indeed. It's basically saying "don't bother starting everything because the government will gradually just own it all anyway".
I look forward to buying the dip every April 15th
which is also part of the idea of wealth taxes? to diffuse wealth?
Yes.
Absolutely ridiculous statement, it's not an accurate measure but it's definitely a good measure of money.
If you have 100B to your name even if it's post IPO stock in a possibly ponzi company that's your current wealth and you can easily convert a staggering portion of it into material realized wealth depending on several factors.
If I use cash to buy 1B dollars in Microsoft shares today, am I not worth a Billion dollars...?
The value may not be exactly convertible agreed so let's just force everyone to book all gains every year, and force sell a net percent of your share.
Not 100B$ of share, but 2% of 100 Million units of stock that you own. Why does this not work?
If I take 2% of your shares why can't it work the same way? I can then pick and sell it over the next year or two however I see fit, in case of govt they can slowly sell back this share to not affect the prices too much.
I am baffled by the fact that we have a tractible quantity and people call it hard to use to measure money.
Paintings, Jewels, etc. are what's truly the hard part of the wealth equation not the stocks, which is over 99% of what a wealthy billionaire owns.
I am not even considering pro or against taxes on billions people make but it's ridiculous to say stocks aren't money? Then what is money really... Currency is also traded, it's value can also go up or down....
> If I use cash to buy 1B dollars in Microsoft shares today, am I not worth a Billion dollars...?
Who says that the price you paid per share was the actual market value of the shares? For example, let's say that you inherited 10 million options to purchase Microsoft stock at $1/share, and in so exercising the options (by writing a check for, say, $10 million to Microsoft), you then end up with 10 million shares, which on paper, with the current stock price close to $500/share, would be worth close to $5 billion. But could you actually get that much money from selling 10 million shares? Definitely not overnight - so many shares getting dumped on the market at once would materially affect the stock price. The $5 billion number is a hypothetical that depends on other people backing up the hypothetical numbers with their own money (i.e. buying at the hypothetical price) - it is not the same as "I have $5 billion in a bank account and could use that to go buy a yacht and buy political ads etc. with it"
But you don't need to be taxed in actual dollar value you can be taxed in percentage of your share ownership. It might not work with real estate but with stock this is trivial
> with stock this is trivial
On the contrary - it's trivial for controlling shareholders to direct the company to issue more stock to them and thus dilute the shares that were taxed. What do you propose, that companies can no longer issue stock after some of the stock has been taxed?
And what about non-divisible assets like real estate? There's nothing that prevents the government from forcing real estate to be held by LLCs instead of individuals, then shares in the LLC could slowly be taxed by the government. So what happens in 20 years when the government owns 50.1% of all the LLC shares that comprise the ownership of the $100 million Hollywood mansion? You're going to let a bureaucrat kick out the A-lister who lives there and put it up for auction? Attempt to sell it to someone who knows full well the same would happen to him?
It's very, very hard to design a wealth tax that doesn't end up being an assault on private ownership in all forms.
even still, the government can propose a value, and if the owner thinks its worth less than that, the government can immediately confiscate the asset and pay that price as compensation.
if the owner thinks its worth more than what the government proposes, they can pay tax on the higher amount.
its still not that hard
> even still, the government can propose a value, and if the owner thinks its worth less than that, the government can immediately confiscate the asset and pay that price as compensation.
This is utter madness. What will happen is businesses will move en masse to places with economic systems not overrun by those driven clinically insane by years of listening to their favourite pundit blame billionaires for everything.
> If I use cash to buy 1B dollars in Microsoft shares today, am I not worth a Billion dollars...?
No. It will be higher. Say you spend your money on shares advertised at different prices, buying the cheapest first, like this:
Your "net worth" is over double the money you just spent.That's why net worth is stupid.
>Net worth is not real.
You wont mind if we tax it then will you?
You do, of course.
p.s. liquidity != wealth. try not to confuse them.
If you have $2bn worth of the same listed stock and go sell half of those, now you have a net worth of $1400m because your gargantuan order drained the order depth, tanked the stock value and triggered a panicked selloff at the stock market which further drove down that stock's price.
You can't take net worth away because it's just an estimate of what someone is worth. It may eventually be possible to turned into dollars and cents without losing too much in the process, but almost universally it can't immediately be exchanged in such a fashion.
Even more so when we're talking shares in a company that is not yet public, e.g. a founder's shares. At that point the valuation is complete speculation, based on what the company may be worth in some hypothetical future IPO. There's no actual price discovery since there's no public trading of such shares.
you confused liquidity and wealth.
illiquid wealth != unreal wealth.
as I said, if it were unreal you wouldn't mind losing it.
if it is illiquid, you clearly do.
economic illiteracy is not the best foundation for arguing against taxing the wealthy. by pretending the wealth "doesnt really exist" and "isnt there" to tax it highlights the underlying greed motivating the argument.
if you dont agree, perhaps elucidate on a more legitimate reason you might have had for confusing unreal with illiquid?
The lack of reality is mostly from how much net wealth is a guessestimate. The actual realizable wealth is largely unknowable. There isn't enough price information to give a certain answer.
But sure, how do you propose to pay taxes with assets that can't be liquidated and may not even be possible to valuate?
Even if you somehow pay taxes in assets that can't be liquidated, now the government has the same problem instead. What is the government gonna do, pay its employees in unlisted stocks, yachts and famous paintings? How will it even know how much taxes it's gathered?
If the tax isn't isn't just satisfying some sense of petty envy, and the tax is intended to cover some budget deficit, I don't see how this would help.
there is no lack of reality. you confused liquidity and wealth. a third time.
there are plenty of ways to handle the problem of taxing illiquid wealth but I dont think there is much value in discussing it with somebody pretending that means it is "not real".
it would be like discussing the science behind vaccines with somebody who persisted in calling them "poisons".
Net worth is usually not fully realizable unless it is in the form of cash. The larger the net worth, the smaller the realizable fraction usually is. In some cases, including some highly visible billionaires, the realizable fraction is likely tiny.
id say it usually is.
most people have very little illiquid wealth, and its generally in the form of a house.
billionaires are a tiny propertion of people, and their situation is as atypical as it comes. theres no reason to make super special accomodations for them, when theyre responsible for making their own dumb situation where they have too many assets to make them liquid on a hurry
There is a lot of literature on this. In the US, 2/3 of wealth is non-liquid so any attempt to price it is fiction. Of the 1/3 that is liquid, most is not realizable. Tax policy is effectively restricted to the liquid, realizable fraction, which is such a small percentage of the total that even modest-sounding percentages are a large percentage of what is practically taxable. Governments know this.
An overlooked issue in popular discourse is that notional asset values are tightly coupled to who owns them — it isn’t transferable. Concepts like “dead equity” have been in the finance literature for a very long time. Elon Musk’s equity only has the value it does because he owns it. He couldn’t convert it into cash even if he wanted to.
>Tax policy is effectively restricted to the liquid, realizable fraction
no it isnt. illiquid doesnt mean unpriceable and illiquid doesnt mean can't be liquidated. people liquidate their illiquid assets all the time to pay their tax bills.
it being "complex to collect" is a criticism of many taxes which are already being paid. sales tax and VAT are horrendously complicated (far more so than a wealth tax) to collect but we still do it.
>An overlooked issue in popular discourse is that notional asset values are tightly coupled to who owns them — it isn’t transferable. Concepts like “dead equity” have been in the finance literature for a very long time. Elon Musk’s equity only has the value it does because he owns it
even if it were true, it's not a good reason not to tax him.
in fact, it might even help bring some sanity to the capital markets if he and every other billionaire were forced to price their illiquid assets for tax purposes.
theres no efficiency or impossibility argument that prevents this. the only argument boils down to stamping one's feet declaring that it's not fair (that I would have to value my illiquid assets and might be forced to sell them if I underpriced them).
> He couldn’t convert it into cash even if he wanted to.
Elon musk has been converting his assets into cash recently and he has had no problem doing it.
Bill Gates similarly liquidated his assets to fund his charity and didnt have a problem doing that.
Why is liquidating their shareholdings suddenly a problem only when they need to pay taxes?
> Why is liquidating their shareholdings suddenly a problem only when they need to pay taxes?
It's not, and I don't think anyone said it was.
The problem is in the calculation of "net worth". And, more importantly, the difference is that people choosing to put their money into something is not the same as enabling it to be taken by force.
>It's not, and I don't think anyone said it was.
Yeah you did. You wrote "he couldnt turn it [his illiquid assets] into cash even if he wanted to".
>The problem is in the calculation of "net worth".
That is not a problem.
Let them value their own assets. If they value their ming vase at $10k then the government reserves the right to buy it for...$10k. They might get away with avoiding paying taxes. Or the government might get a bargain. The incentive, though, is to be scrupulously honest and accurate.
Some people obviously wouldn't like being put in such a position.
> And, more importantly, the difference is that people choosing to put their money into something is not the same as enabling it to be taken by force.
Im not 100% sure but I think this falls under the category of just saying "wealth taxes not fair!"
I would care more about the broken tax system if the politicians didn't waste our tax money. Stop the fraud and the corruption and the incompetence and then let's talk about increasing taxes.
$24 B unaccounted for and lost that was supposed to be for homelessness. $12 B already spent on high speed rail and they want $120 B more. $50 B in EDD unemployment fraud during the pandemic.
This is just in California in the last year or two.
How much more fraud and corruption and incompetence is there that we just don't know about?
There is no way I will agree to any increase in taxes just to see it wasted and going to corruption and political buddies on every side of the aisle.
You could quite literally introduce a wealth tax and then set the (additionally) taxed money on fire; and it would improve living standards.
The point is to lower the economic power of single individuals that compete against the entire rest of the nation.
>Stop the fraud and the corruption and the incompetence and then let's talk about increasing taxes.
Zero taxes is the only right answer. Any talk of taxation means that you have already given in to being exploited, because it's a slippery slope. Let's be realistic - corruption will never end. The only way to reduce it is to starve the beast.
Larry Page owns about 5% of Alphabet, which is worth $4T, so he has $200B give or take. Which part of that do you think reflects a "broken tax system"? Companies should get kneecapped if their market cap gets too high? Founders shouldn't be allowed to keep even a single digit percent of the company?
The broken part is that there is third world-level poverty on the streets outside Google’s offices, working class people cannot afford to live in the Bay Area, and a fifth of California lives in poverty.
I agree that that's the major problem; the poverty is inexcusable. But that's not caused by the $300B (or whatever) of equity. It's caused because the homeowners of the Bay Area decided that once they got a house, nobody else should, and that they should get to exclude others from the opportunities they had.
This same thing was observed during the Gold Rush in California in the 1800s; extreme wealth also resulted in extreme poverty. And there's a great way to solve this: tax the land and redistribute it equally to everyone. Land can't be moved, it's something that belongs to all of us, and you can't make more of it.
You sort of can make more land -- by building tall buildings. Unfortunately the Bay Area has mostly outlawed that, too. And we can't blame that just on homeowners. SF "tenant advocates" are just as violently allergic to developers building new structures as homeowners are. But the worst offenders are definitely Peninsula and South Bay homeowners.
That distinction between tall buildings and shorter buildings on the same plot of land is exactly why the land should be taxed.
Economic land is any capital that has a fixed amount, that you can't make more of. When the local governments in the Bay Area started capping the amount of buildable square feet, they greatly accelerated inequality by converting regular living space and working space into economic land, just like the real land it sits upon.
This is why economic inequality skyrocketed so much. Rentierism resulted in so much being stolen from anybody who doesn't own the land, and blocks out so many people from even having access to the economic system.
Tenant advocates recognize that eviction is an existential threat to their way of life and so understandably they are fighting for their short term future. I disagree with their efforts in the long term, but I understand why they'd do what they're doing.
In contrast when you have enormously wealthy people like Marc Andreessen fighting against higher density zoning there is no such excuse and it's pure greed. Nothing could actually be an existential disruption to the wealthy in the same way. There is no reason to listen to the rich like Andreessen at all.
The equitable thing would be to focus on redeveloping wealthy homeowner areas and limit redevelopment in areas occupied by poor renters, but somehow that option never seems to be on the table. Only the reverse.
I tend to keep quiet on the following critiques, because it can be counterproductive to larger goals to speak the truth sometimes, but something in this comment got to me and I need to share my truth. You're too kind on the "tenant" advocacy groups here. They are nearly 100% funded by wealth foundations that have exactly the same motivations as Marc Andreesen, and the people carrying out the wishes of the wealthy foundations are merely woke-washing really bad behavior. These "tenant" groups fight the types of change that would redevelop wealthy areas, precisely because of their funding sources, and they do it just as hard if not harder than stopping housing going up in other areas.
If anything, these "tenant" groups only advocate for the interests of a small subset of tenants, those who have their forever home, and do so at the expense of tenants in general. It's "pure greed" too, at the expense of others in their same general social, economic, and political class!
I say this as someone who continues to advocate alongside tenant groups on policy for better protections, for rent registries, etc. And as someone who spent many years giving small donations to local tenant advocacy groups. At least Andreesen is transparent in his greed, and not hiding it. I regret all those years of donations to the groups that hurt people, but when it comes to the few good things they do I'll be there with them still. Marc Andreesen and the wealthy funders of "tenant" groups are not harmed at all by better tenant protection policy, but boy are they harmed if real power were handed back to tenants in the form of having enough housing, and therefore ultimate power over the landlords.
Well I'm speaking from first hand experience knowing working people who live in such situations. Their existence is so precarious that a change in housing situation is indeed existential. So even if there are some disingenuous tenancy orgs out there, it doesn't change the reality that this is a real problem.
> They are nearly 100% funded by wealth foundations that have exactly the same motivations as Marc Andreesen, and the people carrying out the wishes of the wealthy foundations are merely woke-washing really bad behavior.These "tenant" groups fight the types of change that would redevelop wealthy areas, precisely because of their funding sources, and they do it just as hard if not harder than stopping housing going up in other areas.
Certainly not the case in my jurisdiction of Vancouver, where such political groups (eg. COPE) have explicitly advocated for apartment development in the wealthiest areas of the city. Maybe this is the case somewhere but a big [citation needed] here. If there are somewhere tenant advocacy orgs that aren't in favour of turning low density detached homes into apartments for workers that's certainly not one I recognize.
> If anything, these "tenant" groups only advocate for the interests of a small subset of tenants, those who have their forever home, and do so at the expense of tenants in general. It's "pure greed" too, at the expense of others in their same general social, economic, and political class!
Yes this is the point of my last comment. The solution is to increase the amount of people who have their forever home. The most equitable way to do that is to "destroy" the forever homes of the very rich for whom that is really no big disruptive deal, not to destroy the forever homes of the poor for whom it would be incredibly existentially disruptive. It is not "greedy" for people to want to keep their toehold on their long term home. To be clear the stakes here are not simply moving somewhere else but being priced out of the city entirely.
This is almost completely traceable to Californians' failure to allow sufficiently dense housing to be built on their doorsteps. The only thing Larry did was bring prosperity to the region.
(I'm in agreement with the thesis of the article)
More taxes should solve that.
Read somewhere that SF spends roughly 50k$-80k$ per homeless person per year.
Taxing more doesn't solve a massively inefficient system at it's core. Just like US education, we spend more than any country on earth, why is it still bad?
Answering that question with a "if only we had more money" is a really poor argument. The CA tax fundamentals are bad, pooring more cash onto the fire will not fix that.
Sure. A lot of that money doesn't even make it to intended recipients because of corporate welfare and inefficiencies in government.
https://youtu.be/YKAD7l1a9hc
In addition, there should probably be changes to laws/regulations to address companies that exploit the poorest.
https://youtu.be/U9Rls-_7LdQ
And, many people who are poor have persistent mental/physical disabilities, so part of that spending is because many of these people have it the hardest.
With that said, we could likely fix all of these things and significantly unequal wealth distribution would still result in a lot of poverty.
I think it's hitting 96k per homeless person a year now. But yes, it's the tax system's fault.
96k$?! Those are rookie numbers. I propose a mclaren for every homeless person. We will weath tax all stocks in the fortune 500 to pay for it, crash the stocks and solve inequality.
If money isn't solving the problem, you're just not using enough.
You can't solve a shortage with demand subsidies. You need to expand supply. SF has too little housing relative to its population, and has perennially tried throwing money at the nonprofit industrial complex which has (obviously) perennially failed to solve the problem because it doesn't generate new housing units, it just bids up and reshuffles the existing ones (and steals a lot of money in the process).
> SF has too little housing relative to its population
The population that's already living in those houses?
Note that "native-born Californians are ~37% of San Francisco County. That percentage has remained relatively flat over recent decades"
https://usafacts.org/answers/is-the-population-growing-or-sh...OK, use money to expand supply. Using more money can make more supply.
Technically, cratering every fortune 500 does solve inequality so at it's purest their argument is right.
I think it's more socialist/communist motivation to seize production I don't think they care about the rich as much as control.
This has basically nothing to do with with market cap of Google or Larry Page's percentage ownership of it; and the state government taxing it more will not make this situation any better.
None of that is Google's fault.
Landlords could have collectively agreed to keep rents at $1K/month and not lobby against building more housing complexes, but they decided to be greedy instead.
that has ZERO to do with the tax system... You can't be serious? Have you looked at the data at all? have you seen how much money is spent "combatting" homelessness in San Francisco?
just not his problem. not a single motherfucker on this website lives their life as if wealth disparities are a genuine problem anyways. you are motivated by resentment
> Companies should get kneecapped if their market cap gets too high?
Yes. They should be broken up because competition is good for consumers and society. If we had functional anti-trust enforcement Google would not have a near-monopoly on search ads where they own both the ad inventory and the marketplace where you have to buy those placements.
Then you'd have two (or three, or four) companies that Larry owns 5% each of that are collectively worth $4T.
That's fine, I don't care as long as they are legitimately competing and not colluding to the detriment of consumers/employees/citizens.
The question of a fair tax burden for the ultrarich is a separate (but related) one from "how big is too big?" for megacorps.
Yes. No one person should have assets worth as much as the GDP of Qatar.
Why does it matter how much the shares of his company are worth? They just represent ownership of a company. It's not like their existence is somehow holding back wealth from the market or from other people. And if he wants to sell the shares to make some cash, then he's going to have to pay taxes on that, which is good for everyone else. And he wouldn't do that unless he planned to spend or invest the cash receives, which is also good for everyone else. I fail to see the harm.
I think one could argue that taxation should be higher, and harder to dodge, and I would agree with that.
But once you start saying that some people shouldn't have more than others to some degree, that's a very slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? Why is it okay for middle class Americans to buy nicer clothes and move into bigger apartments when people are out there starving? If it's not okay for someone to have the net worth of Qatar, why would it be okay for someone to live in an apartment that's worth more than a poor township in South Africa?
At some point we have to accept that inequality exists, and that although almost everyone could do something to minimize it, there's an ethical and practical line that needs to also respect individuality to a large degree, if we want people to feel incentivized to do things, to feel ownership, to maintain autonomy. And where to draw that line is tough to say exactly, but it probably shouldn't be a line, it should probably be smooth, or at least smooth-ish. So I feel like we're just coming back around to progressive taxation. Which we already have.
> They just represent ownership of a company.
That, exactly, is the problem. It's not even about money and tax evasion but power. Why should one person have more say over the company they work for than 10,000 other employees? Or even worse they don't even work there anymore and just control it from outside?
Even if they are a perfectly good and business smart person who never makes bad decisions or abuses their workers. They will eventually die or sell their share, and in either case it will end up with people who care less about the company's long term health than the founder did. Profit maximizers with no ethics and no feeling of responsibility.
I think the concept of shareholders is the problem. Layoffs, cartels and price inflation happen when the people who make decisions get all the benefits but none of the downsides. If it was up to me I would ban stocks and replace them with time limited shares that give you a right to part of the profits for 1 or 5 or 10 years, but zero control over the company. Leave power to workers and returns to investors but never bind the two together.
Sure, yeah, but which of the two numbers I was multiplying together is, in your mind, too big, and should be made smaller, and by what mechanism?
What if they provided value of 10x of the GDP of Qatar?
Why?
If you taxed him half of that wealth he'd still have single digit percentage of the company.
The broken tax system is that I get taxed about 50% on my marginal income dollar --- the system doesn't wait for me to spend it first --- but when his stock portfolio appreciates by a dollar, he's not taxed! Not until he sells in order to spend. Why are we taxing labor so much more than capital?
And no, I don't think that inventing pagerank really entitles two people to $200B. Although in their case I don't think they've done as much harm with it as some other billionaires.
When your job pays you a dollar, you get an actual dollar. Your job never claws that money back. Unrealized capital gains are not money, and they routinely get clawed back. Unrealized capital gains just means someone in New York traded GOOG/GOOGL at a higher price than they did yesterday.
And, sure, super-rich people can in theory use the appreciated stock as collateral for loans and not pay taxes, but in practice Larry and most other centi-billionaires actually sell loads of stock and pay a lot in capital gains taxes because having your status as super rich dude who owns a huge yacht be totally dependent on Google's stock price is a dumb risk to take on, and it's worth paying some taxes to eliminate that risk.
> When your job pays you a dollar, you get an actual dollar.
No.. many cents of it are withheld, by law.
Elon uses his vast wealth to influence, intimidate, and generally get away with lawlessness. He effectively took huge loans from banks to buy a giant bullhorn in Twitter. Those loans are collaterized by unrealized capital gains. And more generally, billionaires have the ear of politicians because of what they could do with their money. So you don't need to realize gains (gains which are taxed at a more or less flat rate!) to make use of your wealth.
Though like I said, Larry is not really a bad guy in the world of billionaires. I would only support taxing him more than I would support levying additional taxes on w2 income assuming CA actually had a provable need for more money. (Right now I think they waste most of the budget.)
He has single digit percentage of the company but double digits percentage of voting stock. My understanding is that he and Brin are holding together barely above 50% of the latter and understandably do not want to lose the control.
The part where he has access to essentially unlimited untaxed cashflow by borrowing against that asset. Especially with how the market has been lately, the gains erase any burden of the loan. Something has be done about this, at least. Otherwise broken sounds about right.
Larry has sold tons of Alphabet stock and paid lots of capital gains taxes. This is easily available public information. The whole buy-borrow-die thing is sort of a stupid myth. Actual centibillionaires diversify because the risk of having a huge concentrated position is much greater than the liability of having to pay some capital gains taxes.
Well, why does something have to be done about this, exactly? Who is getting hurt here? It's not like borrowing is increasing his net worth. Just like anyone else, he has to pay back what he borrows, he immediately owes an equal debt. And that requires actual income, which gets taxed.
> Just like anyone else, he has to pay back what he borrows, he immediately owes an equal debt. And that requires actual income, which gets taxed.
In theory, maybe, but in practice that is not what happened over the past decade(s). Instead our retirement funds are paying it back.
When the market grows it makes the collateral worth more, which lets the holder keep refinancing the debt instead of selling assets and realizing taxable gains. As long as the assets appreciate faster than the debt grows, the borrowing can effectively roll forward for decades. Eventually the estate pays the debt out of the assets themselves, but this is not necessarily out of taxable income earned during the person's lifetime. The US markets has seen exceptional genuine growth, but the trillions of 401(k), IRA, etc money flowing in to them over the last 40 years is no small consideration.
> Well, why does something have to be done about this, exactly?
The something here is what's required to have a functional tax system. Without addressing this situation I do see an argument that we have one. How important that is to one is another question.
the people getting hurt is anyone who would have bought something but was outbit by larry page's free money glitch.
he doesnt necessarily have to pay it back either. he could just take out another loan against his same now higher valued assets to pay off the old loan
Higher valued assets? Can we just assume that assets will go up in value?
whats its mean to be kneecapped?
like, if a company's market cap gets too big, the law should stop applying to them? they should be allowed to start their own militaries and enforce martial law a la east india company?
how does a founder keep a single digit of their company after theyve been dead for a thousand years?
These arent nearly as absolute as you are making them to be.
a founder can keep their percent by paying their taxes with other money they have, or by decreasing the worth of their company. theyre a founder, they have control. Maybe founders wont be so keen to enshittify their products if theres a downside to continued growth forever. considering google dropped "dont be evil" in exchange for making larry page's 1% grow for the sake of growing, how's society at large benefiting from continuing to subsidize it?
There's also the fact that alphabet should have been broken up into about a dozen companies over a decade ago
Larry would still be rich as heck, but probably... less rich..
Yes perhaps there should be wealth caps. Did Larry Page really do 5% of all that labor that made google as big as it is? And should a single company get so big and have so much power? Yes, I get that they took risks and invested early, and we shouldn't take away that type of incentive, but perhaps it should have caps, or an S curve tax schedule.
Google doesn't have much power. It can't arrest you or pass laws or vote. It just happens to produce a lot of profits for its shareholders (who are, overwhelmingly, average people with 401Ks) and a lot of profits means a big market cap.
If we need revenue to fund useful government programs, great, let's tax Larry. But I don't understand what problem is solved by expropriation qua expropriation.
that is to say theyre being kneecapped.
it does have monopoly power and anticompetitive power all over the place though.
google bans are quite intrusive, but google could pretty easily with their graph knowledge apply secondary or tertiary sanctions, at which point you would not be able to do much of anything, same as if the US government sanctioned you
Figured I wouldn't get much traction with that comment on a message board run by Silicon Valley hyper-capitalists lol
This fundamentally misunderstands how this paper wealth actually works.
> If you let someone get to hundreds of billions in net worth
"Let someone"? I guess the right to pursue one's happiness is not all that self-evident after all. One should first ask permission, and, if we are in a good mood, we might "let them" pursue their happiness.
> One should first ask permission, and, if we are in a good mood, we might "let them" pursue their happiness.
yes... this is called the law...
Lots of peoples "pursuit of happiness" is hindered by the law because we've deemed it not good for society.
Last time I checked building companies that offer goods and services was considered good for society.
I actually lived in a society where this was illegal and we were all starving and freezing.
Norway, Spain, and Switzerland have wealth (net worth) taxes. Why don't we see the same outrage from rich people living there? Also, most billionaires get rich with equity in a business that they built. How else can we tax that net worth?
Not only that but they are actively moving into these countries, because, like everybody, they like a functioning government that provides infrastructure, housing and health care for their citizens. This makes for much more livable cities and a happy society.
Actually, in Norway there is some outrage. Many people with (a lot of) money move to Switzerland. There is also the issue that startups are being taxed on "paper money" — the value of the firm on paper based on expected future income — even though they have not yet started earning money.
From what I can find, the top wealth tax rate in Norway is about 1.1%. That seems pretty dumb to leave your home country to avoid paying 1.1% tax per year. For entrepreneurs that now have enormous equity (100s of millions of Euros), my sympathy is low. They can easy sell a tiny fraction of their equity to investors to pay the wealth tax.
We're in a situation where it's already "too late". We can't go back 100 years. How do you propose we fix it, assuming time machines won't get invented soon?
They can move to Afghanistan. I'm not sure the wealth leaving the state, or the country, is such a bad thing.
Meanwhile, when you're in an "already too late" situation, it's already too late. You still have to deal with it.
Additionally, the state gets to tax you on what they say you’re worth based on the markets. That’s a pretty weird way to assign dollar value to someone instead of, say, looking at how many dollars they have.
While stock markets provide useful liquidity for investors entering and exiting positions, they are also rampant with finbro kids doing nothing more than jumped-up gambling. We don’t know which market trades fall into the serious wheels-of-capitalism bucket, and which are gambling, because we don’t have to know. The real world works in dollars so, to date, the state taxes people on the realized capital gain in dollars.
If a bunch of kids are selling handfuls of leaves to each other for a nickel each is the state now valuing my unkempt forest at $99bn? The state is welcome to pull up a chair and watch me try to sell 5 kilotons of leaves to every kindergarten playground in the country. If I succeed then it will take its cut of the capital gain. If I fail, it will not.
When the state starts looking inside the market black box and guesses, based on little Johnny and Becky’s recent playground trades, that I might be able to get at least $300 a tonne for my damp, rotting leaves, then the state is doing something at best weird and at worst unfair, and states doing unfair things is really bad.
Fix the system properly: when you inherit stock, you inherit the cost basis as well. Rinsing off capital gains liabilities through “buy/borrow/die” is the real villain here.
[flagged]
> it’s already too late.
Absolutely not. 100% you can take it.
If the $100B+ was created through ownership of a company and is unrealized wealth, how would you have taxed it if not through a wealth tax? Nobody is getting to $100B by way of income.
If you let someone get to hundreds of billions in net worth and then realize they haven’t been appropriately paying back into the system, it’s already too late. Like the article says they can simply say “no” in a variety of ways, from fighting in court to simply leaving.
It's only too late if you're timid and wimpy.
And care about the rule of law. You cannot pass retroactive laws, you cannot pass laws that target individual people. If you pass a general law (which could very well have reasonable objections), people have to have a chance to leave.
"I'm passing this law that is effective the exact millisecond I sign it, tough shit if you don't like it" is tyranny and despotism. But based on your comment I think you know that.
> And care about the rule of law. You cannot pass retroactive laws, you cannot pass laws that target individual people. If you pass a general law...
A wealth tax is not a retroactive law, nor something that targets an individual person. It's a "general law" in your parlance. Think about it.
> If you pass a general law (which could very well have reasonable objections), people have to have a chance to leave.
I don't think so. By what legal authority is that required?
> "I'm passing this law that is effective the exact millisecond I sign it, tough shit if you don't like it" is tyranny and despotism. But based on your comment I think you know that.
No, it's not, and don't be ridiculous. When they passed laws against date-rape, would you have judged it "tyranny and despotism" unless the law was delayed to give the date-rapers time to finish up the date-rapes they'd planned?
There's no justice in giving the wealthy the maximum opportunity to pick and choose the laws that apply to them.
> people have to have a chance to leave.
They did give people that chance.. That's kind of what the entire article is about. They literally did leave.
ah yes, all the tech billionaires of this era, had they been given the heads up that there success would have led to a level of concentration of wealth and power previously unknown to humanity, and that the populace would likely call for some changes to tax law to address the largely unforeseeable structural economic effects of this level of change they brought, would certainly have opted out, leaving the US, and moving to another less tyrannical part of the world, where, by the unique magnitude of their genius, they would have brought all their great works to the glory of other nations and not to America with its overly entitled peasants and social media sharecroppers; clearly the rule of law in Europe and China would have allowed them to fully manifest their unparalleled vision of technological greatness without any concern of a rug-pull by authorities challenging their well-deserved hegemony
The richest people in the world sure are lucky to have good people like you out here fighting to protect their rights
What hyperbolic nonsense, just because something doesn't affect me doesn't mean it can't be bad policy. Wealth taxes are a fool's errand and serve only to damage and slow the economy.
a lack of wealth tax is slowing the economy today.
ultrawealthy people just cant spend as much or give useful market signals the way the masses can
its hyperbolic to say laws that are active when passed are tyranny and despotism
Or if people can easily move. Or if you want the next generation of startups to operate in your state.
the FTB is anything but timid and wimpy
if the voters and legislature have the “bravery” to pass the wealth tax law, it will be aggressively enforced by the FTB
the second-order effects, whatever they may be, would be clearly visible within a couple years.
Property tax increases are hamstrung by Prop 13 and until that’s repealed, will continue to be.
And while the wealthy always threaten to leave when faced with higher taxes, the fact is that they never seem to actually do so.
The site is based around georgism whose fundamental premise is that taxing land is the universal solution (much like for republicans cutting taxes is their solution to everything: economy going great? We should cut taxes. Economy going poorly? Cut taxes. Deficit too high? Cut taxes.) I don’t put much stock in analysis by single-solution thinkers.
> And while the wealthy always threaten to leave when faced with higher taxes, the fact is that they never seem to actually do so.
Around 2T worth of wealthy individuals left california when the wealth tax propositon was started.
They're hamstrung by property tax increases being massively politically unpopular. Prop 13 only bans taxes on the value of land, there's nothing stopping politicians from approximating LVT by an "urban acreage tax" based off plot size in cities other than the fact that it'd get them all voted out.
do they believe its a universal solution? or one tax among many that triggers a certain asset, land, to be used more efficiently?
Even the conservative states who supposedly stand for the individual can’t get anything like proposition 13 passed through their state legislature and it’s been over 48 years.
Isn’t California one of the richest states in the richest nation? Does that government really need more revenue?
> Does that government really need more revenue?
That's not accounting for the Cali govt being also one of the best in the world at wasting money.
The only need another $100B and another 20 years and they WILL build the High Speed Rail!
California is the perfect picture of neoliberalism. They've privatized as many government functions as possible and, shocker, the public-private partnership has ended up with a LOT of waste and fraud.
Without very strong oversight, you cannot trust these private companies to not simply suck down every single dollar the government is willing to offer. A private business whose only client is governments will never ever be cost effective. They'll always charge as much as possible while offering the most minimal quality possible. That's how they increase their profit margins.
[flagged]
Whats wild is the commercial side didn’t get closed. I understand the argument for individuals or households (I don’t love it - I’m on the wrong side of it, but at least it’s somewhat defensible), but if you’re running a business and your income isn’t keeping up with inflation, that’s called failing.
And it will never be repealed.
Old voters like the house they brought 20 years ago for 100k being worth 1.5 million today. They also like not paying taxes on that 1.4m in wealth accumulation.
Is it not that the gains are unrealized? If they sold the house they would pay capital gains tax?
They aren't going to sell it, they'll pass it to their children and the cost basis will reset. Their children will then sell it and pay zero tax.
Then it would be taxed under inheritance tax (at the full value of the property - not just the gains).
Edit - I’m wrong, I am uk based - just read up on US, wild that you can inherit a house that’s gone up in value massively then sell it and experience no gains or inheritance tax.
Property taxes are unrelated to income tax
I'm not a finance person but I think capital gains kicks in if you sell early. Otherwise, just regular taxes?
opposite, income taxes take place first. after a waiting period, its just capital gains. capital gains taxes are typically lower than income taxes so this encourage long term holding
I think not wanting to pay some yearly tax on that $1.4 million because the government pretends that the same as having $1.4M cash in the bank, or making $1.4M in a year, is fine.
Not wanting to pay the property taxes associated with a $1.5M home is the problem.
Which is why we also have things like a deferred property tax program! The way to "solve" the problems Prop 13 addresses would be to expand programs like that, but homeowners—disproportionately active middle- and upper-middle-class voters—want to have their cake and eat it too.
It wildly distorts the entire real estate market. Cool your home is worth 1.5 million. Your kids will never ever afford a home.
Without prop 13 that house would probably only be worth 600k. What difference does it make if it functions as a home.
Too late to fix it now.
what reasonable persons wants to pay taxes? Just because you like to pay extra doesn't me we should.
I mean, I do too. Mine just happens to have been bought before the last inflationary cycle.
It drives me crazy that California voters will wave through every single regressive sales tax hike that is placed in front of them, yet they will crawl through broken glass to vote against a property tax hike on corporations.
Please don't post snarky dismissals like this on HN. The guidelines make it clear we're trying for something better here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Mate have you seen how much slop makes it to the front page?
Snark is one of the last ways to deal with the death of the internet.
Acting like a jerk is not the best way to deal with bad content. Our software autokills generated comments and we downweight slop posts multiple times daily – when we know about it. Maybe the way to deal with junk content is not to create more junk content? You can just email us.
If the SEIU healthcare workers union is going to amend the state constitution, they should chip away at Proposition 13 instead of amending the constitution to make a bad tax that encourages capital flight.
But neglects to consider why it won a majority of votes. Why did it? And how does Prop 13 relate to the more recent Prop 19, which substantially weakened it?
But let's be clear: Prop 13 is bad and is holding down property taxes on both commercial and residential land.
> News at 9.
The idiom is "film at 11."
California is already collecting way more taxes than needed, perhaps the state needs to learn how to better manage existing taxes
Why would someone spend their time online advocating for themselves to pay a higher percentage of their wealth to taxes than people who make more than them?
Because anyone with a brain knows that a wealth tax wont just target the super wealthy for very long.
Same shit happened when income taxes were first introduced.
The ONLY thing that works is making sure a tax never hits the books in the first place.
You already pay a wealth tax. It's called property tax. Most people wealth (if any) is concentrated in the house or appartement they live in. And so the real wealth tax is already here.
So you are opposed to any taxes whatsoever?
People are opposed to ever increasing government spending and low effectivenes of spending
The state needs to earn the right to tax more by showing prudence and effectiveness in handling finances
Nobody would oppose taxes if that actually meant material improvement of public infra
This is the reason I would leave if I was a billionaire. Living in California I never felt like my tax dollars got me anything more than they got me in other states and if the city/country/state got even more I knew it would go to some sort of tomfoolery like a high speed rail that doesn’t actually get built or a $1m bathroom.
The Noe valley bathroom was enough of an anomaly that it made the news. Do you have actual evidence that California taxes are not well spent?
please count how much money california (and SF specifically) spent on "homelessness" and what does the California has to show for it? its 24 billion with a giant B.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/california-homeles...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HTBkxB5bsAACmdi?format=jpg&name=...
>please count how much money
1% of the budget. Is that supposed to be a lot?
its a lot of money for the lack of results they achieved
If you are a billionaire or 100 millionaire, you probably got rich in California, Washington, or Oregon, or probably in the northeast of America in the last 50-60 years, if prop 40 passes, it will have the same effect as prop 13, a positive effect long-term that is, if you manage your finances, most of the states in the Union you are out of luck. why is that?
As someone who lives in California. Goodbye please move to one of those red states. Florida? This percenter will stay in California, and if I had to, the only other two places I would go would be Washington or Oregon, and if the United States was still on good terms with Canada, British Columbia which doesn’t look too bad, but I’m staying on the west coast of North America.
214 out of 40 million people, there is no need to carry water or suck up to them.
I don’t have experience elsewhere but in Santa Clara county, the county assessor calculates a very much incorrect split between land value and value of the improvements (buildings) when they assess the property tax. Sometimes they just divide the total value by two and call it value of the land; in other cases the value seems to match reality more, and the value of improvements match the actual cash value (but not replacement cost) from insurance companies.
How would a land value tax accurately compute the land value?
Not all assessors do this accurately, especially in California, but there are many that do. This article includes a section on land valuation which summarizes and links out to various other articles about various approaches
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/does-georgism-work-five-yea...
> In its ideal form, this tax would capture and redistribute the annual rental value of land; that is, the recurring value of the land excluding the value of any buildings or other improvements on top of it.
> but you see the same basic patterns everywhere. Land in the city center is worth much, much more than outlying areas.
The calculation of the "unimproved value" always perplexed me.. it seems like you're not taxed for the things you build on your land, but instead for the things other people built around your land. After all, why would property in a city be valuable if not for all the high rises, subways, and office buildings?
> it seems like you're not taxed for the things you build on your land, but instead for the things other people built around your land.
Correct.
The article includes a section on land valuation that gets into those details.
It, in effect, turns out not really to be a land value tax at all. It turns out to be a tax on the most valuable thing that _could_ be built there because that's what gives land it's value.
So you're completely correct, the value of the land changes with what's around it because it opens up new options for what someone might build there.
this is the idea - if theres a lot of value around you, you should build to make sure you are meeting the bar of whats around you in terms of economic activity.
if you build even more and get more out of the land than whats around you, you essentially get a lower tax rate until your neighbors catch up.
if you lag behind, you pay a premium in taxes to not develop
There is a very weird but real phenomenon where it costs more to build/remodel in an upscale part of town. Roof repair: same roof, same company, two jobs 10 miles apart with wildly different invoices.
https://www.openavmkit.com
As I see it, the value in a wealth tax isn't just in a cash grab. It's about reining in the behaviour of the wealthy.
If you can cap individual wealth to eight or maybe nine figures, you take options like "bankroll major state/national elections on a whim" and "buy up major media and communications brands" off the table. As far as I'm concerned, these are things we can do without and probably have a healthier society as a result.
California's attempt might be well-intentioned, but it seems so weaksauce that it won't reach to the behaviour-modifying level.
The "why bother investing" mentality that's used to argue against Georgist land-taxes might be interesting applied to a high wealth tax too. If your stock portfolio is already approaching the cutoff line, will you press as aggressively for that last short-term bubble with long-term expenses?
> [C]ritics estimate the lost revenue would have to be made up by roughly doubling the state sales tax
It is possible to just ... stop spending ...
If you have specific suggestions for what spending to cut, by all means...
California spends an insane amount on combating homelessness with nothing to show for it. This is a difficult problem to solve for sure; I'm not an expert in this field and would be speaking out of turn were I to suggest preferable alternatives. Suffice it to say that billions of dollars are being flushed down the toilet doing whatever is being done right now.
No california has an NGO homeless industry, which gets paid on the amount of homelessness. They are incentivised on increasing homelessness, thus this is what they do.
High speed rail.
Exactly $0 of high speed rail infrastructure was funded by sales taxes. State dollars came from prop 1a and cap and trade funds. About 12B over a decade and a half for heavy engineering, land acquisition etc. if that money was not spent it would have a negligible impact on your taxes.
Everything the California government does has a negligible impact on my taxes. However, the sum of it is not negligible. I'd rather them not waste money because it's "negligible".
Spot on. Seen too many colleagues pack up for lower tax states, taking their equity and talent with them.
Anecdotal, of course. Which states they going to? Do they compare to CA?
Idaho. No. Idaho has almost the worst per-capita GDP in the country but California dollars go a long way there, although not as far as they used to. Californians also like to use the phrase “don’t Califonicate Idaho”, because high wages there would ruin their lifestyle, which is paid for by their California dollars.
Prop 13 should only cover primary residences. No vacation homes, no investment homes, no apartment complexes, no Airbnbs, no commercial properties, no offices. This single change would fix the majority of the state's tax shortfall. Going on about billionaires and not fixing this obvious loophole should tell you that people in charge aren't actually interested in solving the problem, just using populism to get votes.
I was talking to a friend about the billionaire's tax and this issue came up. Here's how I see it: either individually wealthy people stay here, and we take their money to build state capacity to even out the distortions created by their wealth, or, they leave, and the distortions fix themselves.
The easiest one to point to is property prices. Wealthy people buy land, and drive up the price of land and rent for everyone else. If a lot of people suddenly make a lot of money in San Francisco, in general, for me and most of the people I know, there's no "rising tide" that lifts our boats. Our income remains the same, but our rent goes up, and maybe our lives don't make sense anymore, and we have to move.
But if there's a wealth tax, and it encourages rich people to leave the state? Awesome. Go drive up rents in Texas or Montana or somewhere else. Or pay the tax, and then the state can use that money to build affordable housing.
Before you say anything: I lived through the 90s, and you can't trick me with "WOW YOU THINK THE GOVERNMENT CAN DO THINGS? WHAT ABOUT THE DMV???" Go somewhere else.
> "...WHAT ABOUT THE DMV???"
And I'd ask them: "What about the DMV?".
Perhaps I'm uniquely able to read and understand simple instructions, or maybe I've never asked the DMV to do anything especially complicated, but I've never had the DMV fail to do what I came there to have it do for me. The worst I've gotten from a DMV was having to wait for literally an entire day when I made the mistake of going to the San Francisco DMV to get something done, rather than doing the smart thing and going to an office in one of the nearby towns. It's... very stupid that there's a single DMV office for a city of -last I checked- nearly a million people.
> or, they leave, and the distortions fix themselves.
It's always funny how often people ignore this. 99% of the problem would go away if the outliers moved away.
The problem is the wealthy people can still buy and own the land without being residents. These billionaires "moved" to Austin or Florida or wherever, but they still own the same multi-million dollar mansions in the bay area or LA or wherever. They just spend less time in them.
The Chinese model fixes this problem, albeit with a heavy hand. The state's power can never be subordinated, billionaires are checked by the state and strict capital controls stop them from having a backup bunker of gold bars outside China. I think they also limit dual citizenship to some extent. Heavy handed though it may be, for 99% of Americans you would have 0 negative impact, but it would align incentives better. With a cooperative tax policy between states there would be less of a race to the bottom and tax-integrity could be maintained. A home would count as a residence regardless of whether you "reside" there. Maybe then we would promote both nationalism and state/community integration. Having to bear the full brunt of state residency tax ramifications could enforce less empty homes and more investment in states they reside.
I understand why LVT is compelling. Wealthy people can subordinate or borrow state capacity and monopoly on violence, while driving legislation. There needs to be some check on power.
In your example, you are 100% correct. It doesn't stop at Austin; we have a transnational class of people who no longer care about the nation itself.
I don't think that makes sense. The wealth tax, as written affects a pretty small percentage of "rich people". Most "rich people" will not pay a wealth tax.
So sure, let's say for the sake of your argument that everyone who would be subject to the wealth tax moves away. That won't move the needle when it comes to housing affordability in California.
So, ok, change the wealth tax so it applies to a lot more people. Ok, so maybe more people leave. Do you really think driving people with money out of your state will actually be good for you and the state? That's just not how economics works.
> Do you really think driving people with money out of your state will actually be good for you and the state?
If your state is selling 500sqft condos for $3,000 a month, then yes, it probably would increase the average quality-of-life for that state's residents.
Wealthy people won’t be driven out of the state. There is a reason why California, Washington, Oregon and the northeastern United States are doing well in comparison to the great middle it’s the total package.
Geography, post-secondary education, relative openness/acceptance/tolerance towards people who are different, religion, race, ethnic group etc.
The best decision my parents made was leaving Tennessee and Texas and coming to California thank you.
I don't think this assessment is connected with reality. Land on its own isn't valuable, its the labour and investment people put in while on the land that produces taxable value. Just because the land can't leave doesn't mean the value of the land stays. As long as the government spends more than it can collect, simply charging more people to operate will cause regular people to leave. The higher you tax above the laffer optimal you are just destroying value. My opinion.
> laffer optimal
"optimal" is an annoying term here.
That point is the maximum taxation burden possible, but it shouldn't be a target.
"optimal" might actually be a much smaller number, where prosperity what is maximized.
The billionaire tax is an experiment, they did put the bar pretty high to measure how many families will relocate (that's super easy to track); once that's measured, it's easy to build a model to adjust this threshold to whatever is advantageous for the state and keep things in balance this way, where the outflow is carefully measured and weighted against the tax threshold. The "hard part" was just getting this to pass the vote; then they can adjust this threshold anytime as voters have already approved it. What isn't measured is that billionaires create jobs "around them"; and, implicitly, jobs will be created somewhere else; unfortunately this model will not measure that.
I’m not convinced billionaires “create jobs” in any meaningful numbers.
Sure, the companies that made them wealthy do, but the billionaires themselves? Doubt.
So if the only consequence of this is that the billionaires flee to Texas, with its regressive taxes, and take the wealth inequality and corruption that goes with them… I’m not seeing that as a bad thing.
Depends on the billionaire. If it's someone with a large chunk of a large company, each billion dollars represents hundreds of skilled people employed to do something. If a state is hostile, then why not move that activity? And that's before the direct lobbying at a federal level.
They are neither competent enough nor incentivized to perform this optimization for the benefit of the state.
I think the point of the article is correct; the issue with CA is everyone wants to live there, including rich people. If we try and tax them then they'll leave just long enough to not pay state income tax, if we tax property values then the state actually gets the tax and doesn't miss out on job creation or future revenue.
Red states have implemented low income tax with heavy property taxes (think Texas) with great results. and although I'm sure California would just manage to mess it up it's a great idea.
I would not frame Texas as having great results. If anything places should get as little like Texas as they possibly can. I mean they send you to jail for an abortion or a gram of weed. It's living under Shari-yall law.
The tax system in Texas is a better system. Sure, Texas has lots of problems. That doesn't mean there is nothing to learn from Texas.
I live in Texas. I don't like the restrictive laws. Texas could learn a lot for California, just not in the areas of taxation
The lack of a progressive income tax structure gives texas few levers to ameliorate budget issues without cutting services or raising property taxes. It doesn't help the current governor seems to be pushing city budgets to the brink by also cutting off the property tax lever.
https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/17/texas-city-budgets-c...
Out of curiosity, why couldn't property taxes be progressive? What stops Texas from having different tax rates based on the value of the property?
It even seems like it avoids a lot the pit falls the uber-wealthy use to avoid most progressive income taxes. Its easy to disguise income as something else. Property, though, is right out in the open. The state can easily audit and value property and send the bill. No matter how fancy the accounting, that bill will eventually reach the person "consuming" that property.
Nothing I'm aware of stops that.
In practice, at least from what I've read, in TX, the largest/wealthiest companies get the biggest/best tax breaks (eg Tesla), and end up paying proportionally less, so it's somewhat regressive.
In Texas, like Florida, you get a bill for all improvements within your neighborhood or development as they come. Just because the tax may appear low on the front end, that doesn’t mean you don’t pay for the same relative lifestyle as everybody else in the United States of America.
Even though all the states have their differences they all live relatively the same, in short, if you are an average person, you pay pretty much the same as any place else. It’s only the wealthy who get to hopscotch and dance over the top of all the bodies of the (working class) below.
There’s nothing California can learn from Texas, but if you want to live like Texas or Oklahoma, you can just move to Bakersfield, California hint: that part of California sucks.
Better, or better for you in particular?
> Shari-yall
Made me laugh while drinking; messy, but worth it for the smiles I'll have every time I remember it! Outstanding job, internet stranger.
Related slang options: "Y'all-Qaeda", "Yeehawdis", "Talibangelical".
[flagged]
Appropriate username.
Solid counter argument.
How is it that landlords can't pass a land value tax on to renters? The link makes this claim, but I don't understand it.
It's a (real) property tax. Adjusting rent accordingly seems pretty easy. And, as I hope we all know, property tax is inherently regressive.
I agree the proposed wealth tax is a bad idea, but raising property taxes is probably not viable. They are incredibly unfavorable to voters. No one who owns a home wants to pay rent, that's why you buy in the first place.
Personally, this is why I am fine with higher income or sales taxes.
"Personally, this is why I am fine with higher income or sales taxes."
Indeed, the working poor need to pay more in taxes.
Not even the poor. Really everyone working. I would much rather sleep all day and live off of a pile of money than to show up somewhere and do something for money. That's the tax -- 35% of your waking hours are now at the service of someone else. And yet, they charge income tax on that. Stay home and live off a stash of money in your mattress, 0% tax, 0 obligations. Wake up and commute to work, 35% of your week gone, 35% of your "income" gone.
I am not even that mad that I personally have to pay taxes. I enjoy funding government programs! I think I owe society something! But it sure doesn't make sense that already being rich makes you immune to giving back to the society that made you that way.
To me the most egregious is inheritance not being taxed like income. You can get $10m in a year and pay less tax than a working person.
Which is why the majority of people in California who work for a living shouldn’t be carrying any water for billionaires or hundred millionaires, you could even extend that down to someone who’s worth 10 million, until you get to that level, you don’t realize how many people over that level have it very easy.
In comparison to the majority of the population, you know the other 99%. That’s right, you heard it right. 99% of the population does not have $10 million free and clear without debt. In other words, if you are still paying off your house you are not in that upper bracket.
Even worse, step up basis! That capital gain may never be taxed
[flagged]
everyone working is the poor.
the rich are an astounding amount of wealthy such that they dont show up and still make a good poor wage in the first couple hours/days of a year by their assets increasing in value
you are poor, even if you are doing plenty well for yourself
The numbers on wealth distribution are shocking, to say the least. I think wealth taxes without loopholes are a really good idea in the current circumstances, infact I believe it may not go far enough. And I think there has to be a global concerted effort to tax wealth.
The working class are starting to choke and drown in financial stress, and this will only get worse. Capital naturally accretes and we've never had this level of capital concentration in human history.
> No one who owns a home wants to pay rent, that's why you buy in the first place.
If this is actually a common attitude, people are... ridiculous. Real property is a limited resource, and allowing people to own property comes with strings attached. This is a pretty normal thing in very many places.
But I do agree that raising property taxes in CA in particular is a politically toxic topic.
> No one who owns a home wants to pay rent
They just want continually delivered services from the city funded by taking out increasing amounts of debt or selling off new land in a ponzi scheme to fund existing obligations.
And higher taxes on capital gains & dividends.
Sales Taxes are the worst ones. Burden on seller, burden on buyer, regressive. Income is more fair but easy to mask-out for the wealthy. Property is meh, Wealth tax is the best one. Assuming all were well designed.
Sales tax and the gasoline tax are use taxes. They are about as fair (democratic) as you’re gonna get because it’s based upon use most the other taxes whether they’re high or low, you can’t escape from particularly if you are the average person in the middle, and once again, if you benefit from capital gains, that is a huge life-changing benefit, which most working people don’t have. Vote yes. on proposition 40 if you are in California the less than .001 and even the 1% will easily survive.
Property is literally a wealth tax on an asset that can’t move away
why is it a burden when they are already collecting sales tax? They just change one number but nothing else changes.
Some items taxable, some are not. Keep track. Some have different rates depending on who's buying, keep track. Buyers in different locations pay different rates, keep track. The rules change frequently, keep track. Collect money for the govt, keep track. Remit quarterly or face penalty.
There complexity and overhead on sales taxes; more than on an income, retained earnings or wealth taxes.
Also, sales taxes take more percent of wealth away from the lower wealth bracket than from the upper wealth bracket.
If you kill demand, you kill economy.
And I’m very surprised nobody mentioned cooperative tax in this post. Taxing cooperative profits is the simplest and fairest solution.
Most land I bet is leveraged (hence the high price!) and taxing it will put pressure on home owners and investors. It is great for the truely rich who have a $50m mansion because it is chump change and will pay $375k which is approx zero but for someone with a typical house $1m it is $7500 which is less money for food and other household expenses and they may be paying a big mortgage already and not rich in the true sense.
Taxation ain't simple. There are always second order effects.
I am not against land tax but using it as a kneejerk levy could have unintended consequences.
Instead taper onto a reasonable land tax. Just raise taxes if you need more money in a fair and progressive way.
Of all the places you can avoid flight from to avoid tax California must be the easiest.
Since so much of land value is in downtowns, in a theoretical shift to land value tax, most of the increased land value revenue would come from vacant and underdeveloped parcels downtown. The median tax burden on single or multi family homes would actually be reduced. An example is this model of Spokane: https://landeconomics.org/reports/spokane-report#:~:text=sin...
And a lot of the time, it’s those truly rich people who own those vacant/underdeveloped parcels in downtowns.
What would happen if a state just let its government fail? Close all the offices, fire all the the people who spend the day thinking about money,laws, email, and other ways to justify their jobs? Just pay the police from local tax. Oh wait, local taxes already pay for the police. We have too many layers of government. Garbage collection, fire departments, public works - all are locally administered. Why do we need a state layer?
The government is simply the gang that won (vs the other gangs).
If the government fails, then you briefly get anarchy and violence until people organize into groups and use more violence to quash the anarchists. This repeats until there is only one group remaining, and that group is the government going forward.
Georgism aside, the theory that very rich individuals will move if targeted for taxation tends to be _mostly_ false, when it's actually tried (though it's true for companies to a large extent).
If this were to go ahead, how many people would actually move? "I'm going to uproot my life to avoid paying an amount that's kinda immaterial to me" would be mildly weird.
The amount here is not immaterial. Which is why this tax won’t be like other taxes predicted to cause individuals to move.
If you're a billionaire, it's going to have precisely no impact on your lifestyle. It's a non-issue.
California, more so than other places, have a lot of paper billionaires living a middle-class lifestyle because these billionaires are tech founders that hold illiquid ownership in their own startups.
If price was the driver they’d all live in Oklahoma.
See also this recent post on the practicalities and rationales of a Land Value Text: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/does-georgism-work-five-yea...
I am less worried about the one time influx of tax revenue than I am about this state’s wanton inability to balance a budget or show a modicum of fiscal restraint.
I think the author may be right about multiple points but I think it doesn't matter? This is one of those, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good situations. A state-level, one-time wealth tax _is_ something that billionaires can run away from. And this law seeking to apply to people who lived in the state _before its passing_ seems structurally sketchy. This article has some fair concerns.
But we have a one-time billionaire's tax proposal on the upcoming ballot, and we don't have an LVT proposal on the ballot. Saying that the Billionaire's tax will be less effective than promoters say maybe true -- but we're definitely going to get exactly $0 from a statewide LVT for 2026. If the Center for Land Economics gets an LVT on the ballot in a future year, I would strongly consider voting for it -- but that's not on its own a reason to not do the Billionaire Tax this year.
What _would_ be a convincing piece of info, and which no one knows, is what the long-term impacts of a one-time wealth tax are. E.g. Zuckerberg is moving his residence to FL but Meta isn't going to stop employing Californians. And if the state is _credible_ in saying it's a one-time tax, will the billionaires who fled come back after it's done?
No, once you've spent the time and hassle to immigrate, moving back is unlikely.
From what I can tell the residency change for a billionaire is about how often you fly to your various homes. Zuckerberg I think hasn't gotten rid of his Palo Alto or Lake Tahoe property, he just added a FL house and will have a cap on how many days per year he's in CA right? This isn't like a normal person with 1 house relocating.
It's very expensive to move the business that owns the assets, and then you need to ensure you don't become resident again.
Once the money moves, it won't come back to where it can be grabbed.
That's why the USA has exit taxes when giving up green cards and citizenship.
But the business didn't move. Meta not moving to FL, and Prop 40 doesn't give any reason to move it; it's a tax on the resident, not the business.
All of the billionaires have corporations, called the "Family Office". Moving the office would be a pain point.
They have been moving both themselves and their family offices.
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/google-cofounders-sergey-b...
"None of this is really about billionaires; California reaches for exotic taxes because its normal one has been broken since 1978."
The author then goes on to talk about CA's property taxes ... but LAND HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE BILLIONAIRE'S FORTUNES!!! Zuckerberg did make his money trading property, he made it through companies.
Nothing about California's property tax decisions have anything to do with 99.9% of Zuck's (and others') wealth not being taxed!
> Nothing about California's property tax decisions have anything to do with 99.9% of Zuck's (and others') wealth not being taxed!
That may be true, but you appear to have missed the part of the sentence you quoted that came after the semicolon:
Property taxes make up a large portion of many states' tax income. 1978's Proposition 13 made it so that California is -more or less- unable to tax the actual value of any property in the state. Wealthy people who've held on to property for decades get to borrow against the "market value" of that property, but the value of the property used to calculate the tax owed to the state only increases at a maximum of something like 2% per year. This means that you'll see long-term landlords (and holding companies) getting the financial benefits of a -say- multi-million dollar property, but the state only gets the tax of -say- a multi-deca-thousand dollar property.Because of Proposition 13, property tax increases in California will affect an extremely tiny slice of landowners, [0] so it must turn to other mechanisms when it needs more tax revenue.
In regards to private "wealth creation", it turns out that money is fungible and you absolutely can built a bunch of wealth off of a mortgage if the "market" value of that property has increased by a huge amount, but the costs of holding that property haven't increased much at all.
[0] This doesn't contradict what I've said, I've just left out some details. A quick summary:
Ignoring a few exceptions, when a property changes ownership its property tax is adjusted to be based on the current "market" rate. When nontrivial improvements are made to a property, the property tax is adjusted to account for the "market" value of only those improvements. [1] Some "clever" people have been known to get around the "property changes hands" trigger by making the property be owned by a company and distributing private shares in that company. Want out? Get rid of all of your shares. Want in? Get shares from someone who already has them, or maybe convince those who are in to make more for you. The property is still owned by the company, so its tax is not adjusted.
[1] It's important to note that repairs are not improvements. It's also important to note that the government can choose to ignore all of these rate-reset rules whenever it wants, as it did when all those extremely wealthy people in LA got their houses burned down in that big wildfire that hit LA.
So what? The goal is to fund the government. You may want to stick it to Zuck and other billionaires (and I admit, there's appeal to that), but if fixing our broken property tax system will fund the government (without causing mass displacement as people's property taxes go up), then we should do that. It's a fix to a structural problem, and a fix that will be durable and be reliable in the future.
Taxing billionaires is not a durable fix to budget deficits. The article very clearly explains why this is the case.
If the tax is calculated based on residency at the time it was earned or granted rather than when it vested or was sold then it doesn’t matter if they leave.
Has there been a good study that firmly demonstrates that tax rates are the primary motivation that rich people have to live in one place or another?
So they're dealing with the problem the rest of the country has been dealing with since everyone started wanting to move to California?
I don't live in California but the article mentioned Proposition 13 which capped property tax rates and the reassessment is only when the property changes ownership?
Is that right?
That seems unfair to people who recently moved compared to the people that stay in their house for decades.
Reading more it looks like California created alternative types of property taxes like Mello-Roos.
In my state we used to have property tax values reassessed every 8 years, then they changed it to every 4 years. But my bill goes up every year. I started off paying about $2000 25 years ago and now it is about $5000 but my property value has also increased about 3X
It seems like if you just taxed an ordinary house at a percentage and you taxed a billionaire's huge house at the same percentage that you would get more money from the billionaire without needing to create special laws and special taxes.
Yup, Prop 13 is a mess and is a big part of why housing in CA is broken. But it's politically toxic to even mention substantial reform, let alone abolishing it or even just phasing it out over time.
If you are retired and did manage to buy a house and are not rich, proposition 13 is the only thing keeping you in your house.
"I'm livin' to keep warm, you livin' to pay rent [...] Bitch, I made my moves with shackled feet"
- some Kendrick guy
Narrator: Kendrick’s feet were never shackled.
The article contains significant inaccuracies. Individuals in the lower and middle economic strata need not advocate for the interests of billionaires or those with assets exceeding $100 million; these individuals have already benefited disproportionately.
Over the past 50 to 60 years, wealth concentration in many Western nations—coupled with the relocation of jobs to East Asia—has primarily favored the upper class rather than the middle class. Similarly on a different battlefield, Brexit has not served the majority of the United Kingdom’s working class population the average citizen has experienced a decline in wealth. In Great Britain, most residents did not benefit from North Sea oil revenues, which were largely directed toward affluent groups—a contrast to Norway’s more unselfish. forward thinking approach of establishing a sovereign wealth fund which benefit it all to the consternation of the wealthy well connected conservative class within Norway.
Remarkably, adherence to sound financial principles—living within one’s means, settling obligations, and saving—can enhance long-term economic stability across all income levels and even at the governmental level.
Much like Proposition 13, voting in favor of Proposition 40 is a straightforward choice. Historically and currently, western political leaders have failed to act in the best interest of the majority usually, they have to be dragged along kicking, and scratching.
It shall be interesting will the middle and lower end carry water for the wealthy again and vote against their interests to save the lucky 214 billionaires in California, that’s right you heard it right, 214 out of 40 million people…
The billionaires won’t be going anywhere. There’s a reason why the West Coast, California, and Oregon are what they are, when compared to the rest of the United States outside the Northeast, climate, higher education, better business opportunities, better political climate for the population, particularly if you look a little different or have a different religion in comparison to a large part of the United States, particularly after 1945.
Brexit is such an odd case, that it seems not worth comparing.
It's so tied into British classicism, and the generally pathetic nature of the middle class English, that trying to extend the results outside of the UK produces absurd ideas.
Essentially the British people took a (not particularly economically motivated) deal to reduce migration, at the cost of economic connection to the EU.
This upset the UK political class greatly, so much of the following policy was about punishing the population, rather than long term economics.
https://www.pangram.com/history/afa0fd9b-eeae-49d0-932a-24b8...
This is mostly slop. Don’t waste your time.
The land value tax is a good idea, but the pure conceptualization that die-hard Georgists have, in which it's a flat tax, doesn't seem in the same line as the billionaire tax. What'd like is just a (drastically) revised version of Prop 13 in which those protections apply only to the first $N of property value. We can effectively tax the real estate of billionaires without having to tax everyone else. I would like to see taxes on luxury properties approach 100% of the property value, to make it extremely painful for anyone to own such properties, and encourage them to be split up among smaller owners.
Feel free to look up the percentage of the CA tax base by 50th, 90th, 95th, 99th and 99.9th percentiles. The myth that billionaires don’t pay their fair share is just that - a myth. A lot of lower income people don’t pay any tax at all and have their state services entirely subsidized by the rest, the vast majority of which is paid by the richest 5%. Every time I see a call to tax the billionaires I know I’m hearing from a fool too partisan to look at really simple to understand numbers.
The effectiveness of other taxes aside, the argument that billionaires will leave if taxed at a higher rate isn't compelling.
Billionaires are not struggling to meet their expenses. If you raise their taxes, they aren't suddenly unable to afford things. They don't need to change their behavior just to get by. A carbon tax forces average people to drive less, but doesn't affect billionaires at all.
Billionaires live where they want to because they can afford to. They're not going to let themselves be chased from jurisdiction to jurisdiction because of numbers that have zero impact on their daily lives. That's what happens to poor people. If California raises taxes on billionaires, very few will actually leave. They're where they want to be and they can afford to stay there. What's the point of having a really big number in your bank account if you have to move to the middle of nowhere in Alabama to keep it from falling just a little?
----------
Edit: Yes, some billionaires have changed their tax residency, but not necessarily their physical location. They likely still own properties in California and can likely be found on them rather a lot. This is evasion, in spirit if not law. Taxing land is just one way to make them pay. Others should be pursued as well. The argument that we shouldn't tax billionaires because billionaires are good at not paying taxes is complete hogwash.
The article quite literally states the opposite, showing that almost half of the taxable base left because of the Jan 1, 2026 cutoff.
It may not be logical, but money effectively turns into a scoreboard at a certain point. The ultra-wealthy care whether they show up to the yacht club in a 100m or 150m yacht.
That individuals won’t optimize their wealth beyond $100m, $1b, or really any number just doesn’t square with observable behavior.
Starting a business self-selects for people that desire money (over other benefits).
The purpose of a business is money (otherwise you start a hobby or charity or something non-businessey).
Being very successful at business is a selection bias for people that are highly competitive at chasing money.
There's a bunch of traits in very wealthy self-made people due to the filter they have run through.
Tax too much, and we kill the golden geese of the economy. Examples abound around the world of crappy economies that can't afford good socialist stuff because they've demotivated the rain makers.
If you are rich, you want to be in places where you can enjoy and show off and well be rich. Living in some third world or second world hell hole or some deep red state with no mountains or beaches where you can’t drive and enjoy your fancy car just would not be fun it’s basically the reason why you wouldn’t want to be rich from America and live in Mexico or further south.
Not to mention your businesses need to be in relatively affluent areas where most people can afford your products and from an educational standpoint, most of the better schools are on the west coast or are in the upper east coast.
Worry. about the other 99% maybe more precise, the other lower 90% of American Society.
The article claims that 6 individually named billionaires already left (presumably recently), and another is likely to leave if he loses his court challenge.
This is a strange argument coming from the side of the argument that usually talks about billionaires being greedy and doing anything to make the numbers go up even though they can't feel the difference.
They can certainly afford it but they obviously like their money to stay theirs and like getting more of it, not less.
Why move to Alabama, do you know Austin is very good
so what if they do leave?
they're bad for the world around them, and you can add an exit tax if you want to
A dozen billionaires already left California.
> the argument that billionaires will leave if taxed at a higher rate isn't compelling
I agree with this. California’s climate and culture will keep many a billionaire within tax nexus reach of the state. Of course, this isn’t a strategy every locale can pursue, but I don’t see a reason for California not to exploit its advantages.
> The land value tax can’t be dodged by leaving nor can it be passed on to renters
Of course you can. You just charge more. Yeah the market dynamics can put a cap on it but the Bay Area mints millionaires like there’s no tomorrow. They can pay.
But I think the purpose of a wealth tax is precisely to get rid of greedy billionaires.
So if they vote with their feet and leave, then that's an even better outcome. Now they can't manipulate the government anymore. They can go manipulate and continue extracting wealth from some other place.
Yeah, kind of a win-win in my mind too.
Let's hope other states follow suit and they keep on truckin'.
Truckin straight to the trash heap where you can sort recycled cans by hand for a living. What an abysmal vision.
Yeah because they got billions by extracting it like mosquitos. It came mostly from your billions I assume. Without that it would have been all yours. Clearly you have zero concept of how an economy works.
You know the extraction is more like 10000-to-1 than 1-to-1.
But in essence I do believe that I (and thousands of others) could have had at least $100k more net worth if they hadn't monopolized all user-acquisition channels and if they hadn't helped bring about the many laws and regulations which made this possible.
I have no ill feelings towards them but I just don't want them in my state competing against me for limited resources using money which they acquired through an unjust scheme which I was coercively made a part of but which I never agreed to and have been protesting for almost a decade (on deaf ears).
It's not personal or even saying anything negative about their character or abilities. From my perspective it's just pure self-preservation. They either need to contribute more tax to make up for the injustice or they leave.
When they sell their assets, it makes those assets more affordable for the rest of us. So any forced sale is good for society. I don't see any issues with it. We were/are forced to prop up their stocks through government contracts, grants and regulatory monopolies... So they should contribute something on their end too.
And I don't care about the "jobs they create" - They created jobs for my competitors to get easy money in cushy jobs. I want those jobs gone too! I don't want FAANG employees bidding up house prices in my area.
I only want to compete against people who are playing by the same rules as me! I don't want to compete against people who can rewrite the rulebook as we go, to suit them.
California made its bed with regulation and housing costs. Now the productive folks are just finding better places to build.
if its got feet, why all the focus on RTO all over the place?
I think the point is that it's possible to move the assets without moving their owner.
This is an old argument. Remember how all the billionaires were going to flee NYC if/when Mamdani was elected. And... then they didn't.
Well Mamdani's pied-a-tierre tax was specifically a real estate tax, levied on the real estate of people who don't have residency in the city. It's a marginal tax in the grand scheme of things, but unlike the billionaire wealth tax, it actually works, because the real estate can't move. And the owners can't just threaten to leave because they've already left, that's why the tax hits them.
He also hasn't really done anything. Mostly because he made a bunch of promises to do things he doesn't have the authority to do.
Except that several billionaires have already left California, in anticipation of this law, as the article notes.
Not sure if anyone could get such a policy change made given that California politics is now just "Whatever the California Democratic Party Wants" and they are very rigid in the ideas they accept.
But I think the proposal being discussed is 1000% more consistent with the principles of a free, non-communist society than the crazy "wealth tax," which sets the precedent that if the government thinks you have "too much" stuff, they can just declare that to be so, and come and take it. Given that the people in charge of drawing the line between "so rich that we need to take your stuff" and "not that rich" will be the same people who have blown up the state budget, I don't see why anyone would trust them.
(No, I'm not Zuck's sock puppet account -- I expect it won't be my turn for "wealth" confiscation for at least 5 years, worst case.)
You’re just carrying water for him. Zuckerberg is a winner. Zuckerberg and the other 214 billionaires in California will be fine you don’t have to suck up to them they’ll be ok a billion times over.
They won't BE in California to be taxed, which will only accelerate all our turns.
wealth taxes are from the old roman republic. the wealthy showed off their worth to each other by how much they could pay in taxes.
its not particularly crazy and is far older than communism or socialism which have the much more straightforward setup of seizing the means of production rather than taxing it.
however, it didnt stop the ultrawealthy from seizing power for themselves
Tax golf courses
Why not both?
As a rather economic left European person I think this:
Last week California certified a Billionaire Wealth Tax for the November ballot: a 5 percent one-time levy on the state’s billionaires, paid out over five years, to raise about $20 billion a year for health care, food aid, and schools after federal cuts
Is just flat out crazy.
To pretend that politicians who are in a perpetual political battle for short-term survival will somehow use this weapon of mass financing responsibly and only once it comically absurd.
This will open Pandoras box.
It’s nuts to me that anyone doesn’t see it. Unlimited money, just declare your victims “too rich.”
Two things:
1. If wealth was only motivated by taxes and was going to leave, it would've left already. Fact is, billionaires don't want to live in Tennessee;
2. Nobody is doing the right thing to tackle any of this, including California.
The article mentions California has land and that's the key point. Unfortunately, California homeowners have been coopted into voting against their own interests to raise property values. If the house you bought in SF in 1975 for $80,000 is now worth $3M, you still only own 1 housing unit's worth of wealth. And that housing cost is an input into everything you need to buy because all the workers required for those things have to be paid high enough to pay those exorbitant rents.
Let me repeat that: high housing costs are an input into everything that you buy.
So what needs to happen? We need to stop treating housing as a speculative asset. It's simply stealing from the next generation. Worse, it's diverting investment capital from productive output because land has become the asset with the best tax treatment, highest returns and most government protections. So what does this look like?
1. Some form of land value tax. The higher the value goes, the higher the taxes go. You raise the rent and your land value taxes go up because it's more valuable;
2. Punitively tax land hoarding including second homes. We could give discounted rates to primary residences of state residents. Nobody else should get a discount. This would mean repealing Prop 13 and that's never going to happen. As an example of this, I'll bring up Prop 19. In CA you can inherit a preferential property tax rate. Prop 19 proposed to limit this to only one property could inherit this preferential rate and it barely passed (51% IIRC). Do we think that 49% of California voters have multiple properties that have property tax rates set 40+ years ago? Of course they don't. It's an example of how people vote against their own interests;
3. Part of what sold Prop 13 originally was the idea of pushing seniors out of their homes with property taxes. Well, that gave Disneyland a tax rate that was set in the 1960s. California should do what Texas does: you can defer your property taxes until you die if you're a senior but there's no capped property tax rates like incumbent SF residents have and no inherited preferential property tax rates;
4. Wind back the preferential collateralization of property for mortgage debt over time. Residential property lending now dominates bank lending and earnings. It's significantly harder to get finance for any form of productive output;
5. Wind back over time preferential tax treatment for home ownership.
Do I think any of this will happen? No.
Oh, one of the worst things to do is transaction taxes, often called stamp duty. This is where you pay a percentage of the value on purchase. This really hurts mobility. I guess it's fine if it's only on the luxury end of the market (CA's is at $5M+?) but it's not a good idea regardless.
The other part of this is to provide social housing like Vienna. The government should be a significant supplier of affordable quality housing.
> We need to stop treating housing as a speculative asset.
This kind of assumes the only reason a house appreciates in value is because people are "treating it as an asset" rather than "the house I bought 30 years ago in the middle of nowhere is now smack dab in the middle of a very desirable area." At that point it's simple supply and demand, not some homeowner being greedy.
> The higher the value goes, the higher the taxes go. You raise the rent and your land value taxes go up because it's more valuable
This makes the fatal assumption that just because a house is worth dramatically more than what you paid for it many years ago that your income must have risen just as dramatically. "Oh well, too bad, sell your house and deal with it." Maybe people kind of like living where they've put down roots and don't want to be punished for something outside of their control? Any proposal that boils down to "pay more or fuck off" is not going to go over very well.
> We need to stop treating housing as a speculative asset.
Something I've been yelling from the rooftops.
Housing can either be affordable, or it can be an investment that's bought, rented, and sold for the sole purpose of profit. It's not possible for it to be both.
People expect their house to appreciate faster than inflation, but all that does is rob the next generation of home ownership.
Many, many years ago multiple generations would live in one home that may have even been built by a generation that is long dead.
And now, when mom and dad downsize after the kids move out, rather than selling the house or pass it to one of their children, they rent it out.
Alternatively, they keep the house, but get either a reverse mortgage or a cash out refi to survive until they die, at which point their kids can't afford to buy it from the bank.
What are the proposals for accomplishing this?
Increase taxes on rental income on single-family homes and double the property tax on vacant homes to discourage hoarding.
Encourage building upwards to increase housing supply. This can be done via tax breaks or subsidies. Especially encourage multi-use buildings to make cities walkable. Stores/restaurants at the street level with apartments above.
Ditch or reform/restrict the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. Remove barriers to building more housing. Other stuff, but you can do a web search, I'm sure.
> voting against their own interests
What you mean is voting against what you think their interests should be.
This phrase is incredibly condescending and undemocratic.
[dead]
California is full of people who do not understand how investment works and want it gone. This is progress missing from progressive. It is the social missing from socialist. Ists and ivs with nothing, merely a pack of stupid ideas. The residual is reality: no-teeth, drug-induced stupor sleeping in street squalor and their rent-seeking enablers cozying up to the tax authorities.
>California is full of people who do not understand how investment works and want it gone
You're being too generous. California is full of envious dysgenics who want free stuff and don't care how they get it.
Good plan. Raise property taxes so non-billionaires are forced to sell property to billionaires who have an insane surplus of wealth.
Billionaires aren't going to leave, they're going to acquire more property.
> nor can it be passed on to renters
This is an asinine claim - any cost can be passed along to a willing payer.
Tax - why not both billionaires and land.
This article is nonsense.
California already has a property tax, about half of which is based on the land value, and the other half on the structure on the land. So this is not some brilliant idea, just a renaming of what we already have.
If the author is suggesting to repeal Prop 13, that is also not a new idea, and has been discussed for decades. Good luck.
Coveting is a terrible basis for an economic system.
Yes, agreed. It's expected, that what the peasant's do, envy the rich and have lots of children.
Which economic system are you critiquing? I would tend to agree, since I think wealth taxes amount to a breaking of the 8th and 10th commandments. But I also think some would argue that the consumerism (envy) that often drives capitalism is a form of covetousness. I think the counter argument is that capitalism does not require consumerism, and that consumerism (envy) can appear in any economic system.
capitalism itself is covetousness and greed.
not good believer in christ would ever participate, when jesus made it clear you are supposed to freely give away everything you own to the poorest among us
It's covetous to expect someone else to give you a part of something they worked for and you contributed nothing to. One of the basic 10 commandments is not to covet your neighbour's property; envy is a sin.
You prefer a regressive one?
Don't argue something the GP didn't say.
There are plenty of other taxation schemes that are progressive and more durable and effective than a wealth tax.
The main reason we're here is because talking about reforming Prop 13 is political suicide, even if that's the best way to fix CA's budget.
I wasn't arguing—asking.
But, you're right, when someone suggests that we poor are just envious of the ultra-rich and that is why we want to tax them, I assume that they think we ought to look elsewhere than the wealthy for taxes. Which kind of suggests tilting toward a more regressive, less progressive tax system.
Introduce a ballot measure that removes the allowances of Prop 13 on retail real-estate and I suspect you'll find it's not political suicide at all.
>. The land value tax can’t be dodged by leaving nor can it be passed on to renters
ROFL what? I'd bet the author a lot of money that costs WILL roll downhill, the source matters not.
I think the idea is that if the market demand is such that it allows them to raise rents, they'd already have done it, whether or not expenses justify it.
Did tariffs raise prices? Or did prices stay the same because "if the market demand is such that it allows them to raise [prices], they'd already have done it"?
Looks like this is complicated and the short answer is "it depends":
https://chatgpt.com/share/6ab5ca51-3e0c-83e8-a232-892d3e4ef9...
If they can't raise rents to cover expenses plus "enough profit to make this PITA worth it" then things (slowly over time) grind to a halt.
It won't grind to a halt. The owner will sell, because they can't make the business work.
At what price will they sell? At whatever price a buyer who thinks will make it work. And by "work" there are many definitions, from continuing operation at current rents, to building more units on the land so that it generates enough income to pay the tax.
Land value taxes shift tax burden away from productive use of land and on to unproductive uses of land. The people who pay more are land speculators and those with empty lots, and the people who pay less are those productively using the land, which is 99% of homeowners and businesses.
So what happens then? High enough property taxes could in theory result in a situation like Detroit where the land value drops so low that properties are abandoned, with no buyers. But that seems unlikely in California?
At less of an extreme, there are still buyers, but they offer less money so they can still make a profit. So, the property tax basically comes out of land values. The current owners lose money on the property. It's the opposite of the windfall profits that California property owners have gotten from rising land values, taken out of whoever owns the land now.
For the next owner, their mortgage expense is lower, their property tax is higher, and maybe rents and profit margins stay about the same.
Notice that if the demand is there, falling land values doesn't result in lower rents. If your complaint is that the rent is too damn high, higher property taxes won't fix it. Only more housing does that.
I'm a bit skeptical that it would really work out that way. In California, we can have the odd situation where the current owner pays low property taxes, the new owner will pay higher property taxes, and yet property prices get bid up, and whoever buys it has to pay both more property tax and a higher mortgage. But they can still afford it, because there are a lot of rich people out there.
If the assessed land value is actually correct, then someone can make that land work profitably, by definition. That might mean bulldozing a single-family home and building a 4-unit building, for example, but it's doable.
If the assessed land value is incorrect, then that would need to be fixed.
Economists for generations have agreed a land value tax is the least prone to this problem. You might want to take it up with Adam Smith.
Yeah, that's unlikely. There are certain classes of renters it can't be passed on to during their rental term, but I'm guessing it can and likely would in general.
People can also sell their land/homes and move. It's less liquid than other assets, but less doesn't mean people won't sell/leave.
In Massachusetts it’s legal to pass on real property tax increases during the term of a residential lease, provided the lease contains specific clauses. (Most leases do, as a result.) And most commercial leases are triple-net, meaning the tenant is also on the hook for increases.
I would be surprised if most land consumption taxes (whether structured as property or land) would not get directly passed through to the beneficial consumers of that land quite quickly, or for their privilege to consume that land to be terminated/non-renewed at the expiration.
One of the benefits of a land value tax is that it has zero dead weight loss: because there's a fixed supply of land, the tax won't cause less of it to be around, and you don't lose out on the beneficial transactions that property tax can prevent.
There are several key benefits and I like the theoretical soundness.
My primary concern is that there are generally no market comparables for undeveloped land in developed areas.
If I believe it’s over-stated, I can appeal my property tax assessment by using comparables for nearby developed property. There is no equivalent market-based process for land values alone.
This is a reasonable and common concern, and one I shared until I looked into it in fine detail. Turns out it's far easier to estimate the value of land that things sit on than the entire property value, and most of the country actually operates on continually updated estimates of total property value rather than just land.
There's several anchoring sales nearby, you can regress out from all sales, etc. etc. And it's smoothly varying for nearby parcels, with very little change!
A much better explanation than what I can write can be found in the "Estimating" section here https://landeconomics.org/reports/california-billionaire-wea...
I will read that link later tonight (thanks!), but this still seems like a system where a particular property owner could be “targeted” (politically or economically) and suffer without reasonable legal recourse.
It's actually much harder to target a particular owner, because it's based only on land area, and the value of land in a general area! Property taxes are much much more susceptible to targeting as individual properties are much more variable and there's far more judgement about individual buildings and the potential value of a building.
Great! I’ll take all the oceanfront/riverfront land in an area and all the land immediately adjacent to major metro stops, please.
This highly local variation in land value does not seem to be adequately addressed n the California link above either (other than “The estimation runs at the level of each property category within each California county or census tract, using parcel-level data”, which does not seem fine-grained enough to cover waterfront property).
Surely the land value overlooking La Jolla or Malibu is worth far more than the lots just one block back. And those lots are likely to have more expensive improvements on them in any taxation system, but at least in a property taxation system there is a direct market reference to come back to rather than just an assessor’s judgment.
How much is the dirt at 28824 Cliffside Dr, Malibu worth? $5M? $25M? $50M? $75M? What does the census-tract level estimate come up with? How does that compare to 28867 Cliffside with an ever-so slightly larger lot, both in Census tract 8004.12?
In California some percentage of certain developments need to be rental controlled, so those are exempt from increases for those lower income folks, but I'm sure the difference would be spread out among everyone who isn't rent controlled.
I'm curious what costs you think will roll downhill and why
billionaires are truly the parasites of this world.
[dead]
[flagged]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
It's the single taxers again, with a new argument.
I'm not a single taxer.
The article is. It's an argument for the main tax being on real property.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_tax
I co-wrote the article. Neither Greg nor I are single taxers. We think LVT is better than a poorly designed wealth tax, but we are not single tax maximalists.
[dead]
just make it federal, bump it to 20%, permanent, each year over shares they own... then they will still pay 20% less than the other 90% of USA
I hope we agree that we need more taxes, it doesn't matter if they are taxes on billionaires, taxes on property, taxes on sales, taxes on crypto, or taxes on the poor. Without taxes we can't have a civilized society.
The number of different taxes is constantly increasing, obfuscating the total tax burden, and making democratic accountability almost impossible. Additionally, tax collections are already at a historical high, while government deficits world-wide are also at record levels, with services on the decline, and no realistic prospect of balancing budgets. This is true for most western countries.
Given the current situation, I do not agree that "we need more taxes", but would welcome your clarifying exactly what you mean.
For a long time I agreed with you, but seeing how the tax money is spent I cannot agree any longer. In most cases government is no longer even spending the money itself, instead it is giving the money to NGOs.
I would much rather see people keep more of their dollars and use them to 'vote' for the products and services that benefit them most, via their purchases.
I’ve long thought if you doubled tax revenue or halved it the public services rendered would be the same. Tax revenue is not the problem.
How much of California's budget is "giving the money to NGOs"?
Congragulations you have just rediscovered conservatism.
…and how to never have any large infrastructure projects like highways or just services that run at a loss while being essential like the EPA
It would be interesting to run the counter-factual on the EPA. Lawsuits around pollution were already increasing significantly prior to the EPA even company vs. company.
Would the resources have been better spent on a more efficient legal system, then leverage that?
*Disclaimer: This definition not valid in American politics, consult your doctor before self-labeling.
Taxes aren’t 0 right now, nor particularly close for anyone being taxed. Your statement supports taxes as a concept at all, but what’s the specific argument that they must be more than they are today?
No thanks, I pay too much in taxes as it is. California has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Spending problem? What spending problem?
https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/california-high-speed-r...
I think we should start with changing taxes on corporations/companies, specifically being able to indefinitely write off expenses against income regardless of size/etc...
Most companies take profit eventually, but if it's possible for a company to decide to never take profit and grow/acquire perpetually without paying any taxes on gross income, that's a problem.
That'd be like individuals being able to deduct living expenses and having uncapped pre-tax 401k contributions.
The ratio of the economy that gets collected as taxes has only gone up over time. Do you have an idea for how much should be collected as some ideal ratio? At what point do the effects of taxation become counterproductive?
Well, the general economic consensus is that for income taxes, the revenue-maximizing peak of the Laffer curve is around 65-70% [1]. Revenue maximization isn't necessarily the right primary goal, though.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#Income_tax_rate_a...
Same back at you. Clearly you think they’re too high. So what is the correct ratio?
The straightforward answer is there is no correct ratio. The best tax regime is the one that allows for sufficient funding of necessary and desired services and long-term economic investment while also balancing wealth creation with wealth inequality. That number isn’t fixed and it’s clear that it shouldn’t be evenly borne by the population as a whole.
I made no such claim. I simply asked someone who said that we can all agree taxes must go up to what level they were referring to and how they chose the number. If there is no fixed ratio such as you say, then their claim is clearly false.
Sorry, but this is bullshit. You’re not fooling anyone. If you think the GP needs to provide an ideal tax ratio, so do you. You don’t get to opt out and pretend you’re above it all.
this is the sadest assertion i've ever seen. if sucking the life out of people is the only way people can remain civilized then we are truely lost.
How else are we going to support public infrastructure and society?
More efficiency in spending? We have newer tools and equipment, technology, automation etc. Do more with less, that is called productivity.
You don’t understand the natural order of things: productivity for you(the worker constantly told to do more), not for me(governments of all sizes, middle management & execs, dumb owners).
Progressive taxation and more efficient spending.
(And in CA, fixing Prop 13, and knocking out more hurdles to housing development in desirable areas.)
Assuming we do need more taxes, the manner of taxation absolutely does matter.
haha. did you say taxes on the poor? I'd like to see you implement that.
If the government keeps doing this, land owners will blow their wealth on the only things that government can't easily tax: blow and hookers.
But leave it to the ineptitude of California liberal politicians to always find a way to steal from the citizens that have the ability to produce and save, in order to transfer the wealth to illegals, politicians friends, druggies, and foreign powers.
I ctrl+f search for "gentrification" and nothing pops up. I close the Substack blog and proceed with my day.
why is that?
Because TFA ignored the problem.
“I think people shouldn’t be displaced from their neighborhoods because of lack of affordability”
I didn’t mention gentrification in the above sentence. Does that mean I’m ignoring the problem?
If you're participating in a conversation between adults in the 21st century, yeah. We've got a word for it, even if it's like garlic to the private equity vampires on this website.
“ Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Peter Thiel, Don Hankey, Travis Kalanick, and Steven Spielberg, worth roughly $540 billion combined — had already moved their tax residency out of state before the measure”
Imagine being worth billions USD and rather than being a part of the solution to support the state that helped build your wealth, you spend your money to just get around paying your small share.
It is trivial for the wealthy to buy another house elsewhere and “move” their primary residence.
More money isn't going to solve our issues. The limiting factor of affordable housing is policy
you spend your money to just get around paying your small share
I wonder how much they spend on lobbying compared to what their tax bill would be.
Comedic article related: https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/i-will-pay-any-amount-to...
The greatest feat that Mao achieved was to take the land that had been tightly gripped by generations upon generations of owners and to shake up the distribution of it so that the land could produce again. People naturally want to work the land, but you end up with suboptimal inertia because owners just end up letting it sit fallow if it doesn't immediately return. It's how you turn a billion serfs into a billion entrepreneurs.
We're already way past the point where a creative cocktail of 10 different progressive taxation schemes could feasibly fix the root of the problem, and you feel this especially if you were born after the year 2000. You're more likely to see results if you pick up a red scarf than if you pass a higher wealth tax, sales tax, land tax, consumption tax, estate tax...
> shake up the distribution of it so that the land could produce again... It's how you turn a billion serfs into a billion entrepreneurs.
In your telling, how does the resulting famine that killed of tens of millions fit in?
The famine is unrelated to the land distribution but also the farm land distribution didn't last. They changed course and put the land into collectives and it is still in collectives today so the famine cannot be blamed on collectives.
My understanding is the famine was essentially the middle managers of these collectives over stating yields and being too afraid to admit their lies. To maintain the lie, they shipped off food while the farmers starved.
> They changed course and put the land into collectives and it is still in collectives today so the famine cannot be blamed on collectives.
Painting it as if Mao era collectives are the same as the state quotas that exist today is highly misleading. The HRS was 1979:
"The household responsibility system replaced collective farming." [1]
Broadly speaking, the collectives can and should be blamed for the famine, just as in the Ukraine. Getting into the weeds on the specific mechanisms is fine, but using it to undermine the broader lesson is apologetics.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_responsibility_syste...
Famine along the yellow river and yangtze river has been happening for thousands of years across all dynasties, its specifically what land distribution was meant to fix, and since 1960s there hasn't been a famine since. My parents and grandparents lived through it and left cities to work in countryside fields during the cultural revolution. You tell me how the famine fits in and I'll let you know if you're accurate or not.
> I'll let you know if you're accurate or not
I think not. Your framing thus far is so wildly inaccurate that I believe this is a propaganda account, and hesitate to engage further. But in case any not familiar with the history read this in passing, I will leave a reference to an actually reputable source:
"Mao’s violent collectivization and forced labour campaigns during China’s Great Leap Forward (1958–1962) led to as many as 45 million deaths in what is widely regarded as the worst famine in human history." [1]
[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/arti...
[flagged]
those who advocate for land value tax are usually advocating for single/minimal types of taxes (and, in fact, against sales and income taxes) rather than a cocktail of them. "Single Tax" predominantly refers to a single land value tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_tax
My point is that a single land value tax would have the same effect as piecemeal improvements to current tax portfolio - none of it would fix the inertia already priced and baked into the system.
> A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous."
> To put it bluntly, it is necessary to create terror for a while in every rural area."
Let's not glamourize the Mao's land reforms. It required the killing of 1-2 million people. Even then, the collectivization was a massive failure - not only did the peasantry not get to enjoy the benefits of land reform, a further 15 million people would die from the resulting famine.
The deep irony is that Taiwan was actually able to do the same reform but with much better outcomes, with much less loss of life or political violence.
Taiwan did not have anywhere near the land distribution occur under CKS/CCK, nor the same veracity of landlord clique ownership. And, you're further wrong in that a big part of white terror was specifically due to 外省人 owners of factories and farms, from land stolen from the aborigines. The white terror wasn't by any means less violent and senseless than cultural revolution.
I prefer sun yat sen’s Land reform ideas to mao’s
Solon did this in Athens. The French Revolution did it. They actually maintained it and had historic states with strange liberty.
Mao pretended to do it but then introduced the familiar Stalinist collectivization that had killed everyone in Ukraine - as he knew.
The French Revolution ended up in dictatorships until it got to something that can call itself liberty.