Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • California is already collecting way more taxes than needed, perhaps the state needs to learn how to better manage existing taxes
    by bijowo1676
  • 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?

    by kccqzy
  • Isn’t California one of the richest states in the richest nation? Does that government really need more revenue?
    by chasd00
  • Property tax increases are hamstrung by Prop 13 and until that’s repealed, will continue to be.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.

    by dhosek
  • 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.
    by binlog
  • > 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?

    by abeppu
  • 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.

    by Nevermark

Explore Birbla archives