Taxes on land value, pollution & IP should replace taxes on work. Split DC into 127 states to achieve a supermajority to make the Constitution fair.
#LVT
#UBI
UPZONING ALONE WON'T FIX THE HOUSING CRISIS; WE NEED TO HAVE A LAND VALUE TAX BECAUSE UPZONING GENERATES WINDFALL GAINS FOR LAND BANKERS. LVT WILL CAPTURE THIS VALUE FOR EVERYONE'S BENEFIT, ENSURES THAT UPZONING BOOSTS SUPPLY, AND INCENTIVIZES EFFICIENT MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE.
6/15/2024: "I'm very concerned that when we have a heavy land value tax, billionaires will avoid paying taxes by investing in other things other than land."
6/20/2024: "I'm very concerned that when we have a heavy land value tax, only billionaires will own land."
LVT critics: "Land value tax is a fringe policy advocated only by a niche group of Twitter people, and is not suited to a modern economy."
The freaking IMF to a first world country:
All taxes are paid by the consumer.
Corporate taxes.
Income taxes.
Property taxes.
VATs.
Tariffs.
They're all rolled into the final price of the product.
It's one thing to say that tariffs are preferable to another tax. It is foolish to say that Americans don't pay for it.
It's insane that so much of the world's tech money flows to boomers who bought 1960s-era three bedroom houses 50 years ago in the right place.
San Jose and San Francisco's median sale price for homes make the rest of the country's metros, even NYC, look like chumps.
The NIMBY reflex is so funny
Kate: "won't billionaires buy all the land under LVT?"
Patrick: "Nope, but inclusionary zoning might be easier to win politically"
Kate: [silence on the original point about billionaires] "Yes IZ sounds good, shame those evil YIMBYs will oppose!""
@GrantGHurst
It doesn't matter "who was there first." Human beings are human beings. No human is better than another human. No group is better than another group. Until we all agree about that, unnecessary deaths will continue.
Twitter users, sobbing: please stop, you canβt just reply to every tweet that a land value tax would solve this
@yhdistyminen
, pointing to a tweet: Land value tax would solve this
The Squamish Nation owns many parcels around Vancouver exempt from local zoning. With 87% of the nation voting in favor, they're going to build 6,000 homes at Hong Kong-density, 90% less parking than required by law and beside single-family neighborhoods who cannot stop Senakw.
I like Sam, and I'm a LVT+YIMBY guy, but an LVT would work wonders in absence of YIMBY reforms. When valuable land is being hoarded, LVT unhoards the value, and until YIMBY reforms come in, would fund a citizens' dividend that is basically a "displacement reimbursement."
A presentation laying out the case for land value taxation. π°π°π°
H/T
@GeorgistSteve
for the graphics on tax incidence and tax capitalization. Cool photos of cities curated by me. π
The logical conclusion of "we shouldn't solve systemic issues if it means harming one group in favor of another" is "we shouldn't even try to solve systemic issues"
the key to understanding the right-wing mind is to realize theyβre omegas at heart, lubricating uncontrollably at the thought of an alpha god-emperor rising to the throne
One of the most insufferable points that people make against LVT is that "we already have one and it hasn't made a difference," and the LVT they're arguing against is a measly 1.5%, which taxes less than a quarter of the land rent when LVTers want to tax land rent at 90%-95%.
It's funny that when confronted with the idea that taxing land will make it so people can't make money from an unproductive land asset, leftists basically end up criticizing the entire concept of productive investment itself, since then it's bad for people to productively invest.
Why would the California Apartment Association be against land value taxation if their members could just pass along the tax in full to their tenants? Very curious to not support a tax that is supposedly free to your members.
When you see the amount of economic growth that will be created once the deadweight loss is lifted from the economy when a land value tax replaces taxes on production.
WHEN TAXING SOMETHING THAT IS FIXED IN SUPPLY, IT WILL NOT RESULT IN HIGHER PRICES... THIS IS WHY WE NEED TO TAX LAND VALUE INSTEAD OF HAVING TAXES ON PRODUCTION!
@MaximusDella
@latimes
Coogler also wrote how the term "ancestors" didn't necessarily mean "descendents" so Erik would have viewed those enslaved Africans as common ancestors.
So then Ken said that a land value tax can be passed on because higher costs would shift the demand curve, but the demand curve doesn't shift because of costs, only the supply curve can shift due to costs, but the supply curve for land is fixed, so LVT can only decrease price.
Hmm, I wonder if anyone has written something about the increase of want with the increase of wealth? Possibly even proposed a remedy that would solve this? Hunger Amongst Advancement? Improvement and Deprivation? Maybe something with a bit of elegant alliteration...
I'm skeptical that Universal Basic Income can get rid of grinding poverty, since somehow humanity's 100-fold productivity increase (since the days of agriculture) didn't eliminate poverty.
Some of my friends reply, "What do you mean, poverty is still around? 'Poor' people
@jdcmedlock
Conservatives: "Immigrants are lowering wages for low income Americans, and that's bad."
Also conservatives: "Low income Americans are getting more money, and now I'm mad because my lunch budget went up a few %."
@LinkofSunshine
"We need the Electoral College so that large cities full of Democrats don't decide the election by themselves. Also, there's not enough Democrats in the country to fill a rally, unlike Republicans." π€
Henry George is like "C'mon guys, I figured this out about 150 years ago and wrote a whole freaking book about it and ran for mayor in the biggest city in the US campaigning on it... try to catch up."
Economic rent is one of those terms that is hard for the general public to wrap their heads around (and confuse with the more colloquial use of rent), but "profit without contribution" or "money for producing nothing" is a good way of characterizing the term in layman's terms.
Profit without contribution (economic rents) are the most just way to fund citizens dividends and government in general. Itβs how we ensure progress benefits everyone.
Getting her an engagement ring for Christmas?
- predictable
- no element of surprise
- perhaps, too romantic
- easily lost/broken
Getting her a land value tax for Christmas?
- instant shock and awe
- will never see it coming
- no deadweight loss
- basic income comes included
In light of some terribly misinformed discourse surrounding a land value tax today, it occurred to me that for both experts and laypersons alike, there is absolutely no understanding about what a price actually represents for various things and how tax affects price.
The market price of a piece of land reflects the rental value that it could currently generate if it was being put to its highest and best use.
Land tax will place a financial cost on people who leave some of their capacity unused.
Land tax is the best form of vacancy tax.
Near-meaningless rent control is also a rebuke to tenants, who reasonably want & will keep asking for it to actually slow rent growth.
I wish rent caps werenοΏ½οΏ½t a dead end, but they are. Either so loose they help almost nobody, or tight enough to hurt almost everybody.
@sam_d_1995
Dude's like "You're not a real American because a real American looks at a nice thing from another country and says that nice thing belongs over there, not here!"
An aging society needs higher taxes (sorry) but that means we need to address the simplicity and efficiency of the tax code more seriously.
Here are some ideas.
What's frustrating is that having landowners pay more in tax because public investments make land values go up is seen as an arbitrary way to tax people, but if a person rents, they pay more in rent due to the same cause, but that is seen as a natural market response.
Of the $270B increase in BC property values over the last decade, 85% ($230B) came from increasing land values that society created. Less than 1/5 of that is attributed to new construction.
If we want to solve the housing crisis, the answer lies here -- the greatest transfer of
We can't tax land because old people don't want to sell their home and want to live in it until they die. We also can't tax land because old people will want to sell their home and live somewhere else until they die. π€·ββοΈ
A Georgist hot take I have is that for a heavy land value tax to be passed, it must be done at the state level and it must abolish at least one of the major income/sales taxes (if not both), along with the tax on buildings. If not, the LVT will be branded as an extra tax.