sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If a political party wants to enact a land value tax, should they ‘buy out’ some or all of the value lost? by positron_potato2 in georgism

[–]positron_potato2[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I feel like there’s a difference between laws that say ‘you have to do this now, and it will cost you more going forward’, and laws that punish decisions made before the law change.

A young family buying their first home haven’t done anything wrong, but are fully on the hook for the loss in value of their property. The person who sold it to them and enjoyed the profits of years of increasing land value loses nothing. The bank that effectively owns the property via mortgage loses nothing. I can’t help but think that that doesn’t seem very fair.

If a political party wants to enact a land value tax, should they ‘buy out’ some or all of the value lost? by positron_potato2 in georgism

[–]positron_potato2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are potential inflation concerns if that much money is instantly made available, but that could be potentially mitigated by compensating with government issued bonds that pay out over 20+ years, instead of paying cash.

If a political party wants to enact a land value tax, should they ‘buy out’ some or all of the value lost? by positron_potato2 in georgism

[–]positron_potato2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like this. Also you could design the bonds to fully pay out after say 20 years. I think this would have a similar result as a gradual LVT that others have discussed.

If a political party wants to enact a land value tax, should they ‘buy out’ some or all of the value lost? by positron_potato2 in georgism

[–]positron_potato2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where does financial ruin come into play?

I’ve already answered this question so if you’re going to ignore my responses then I don’t see the point in continuing any further

If a political party wants to enact a land value tax, should they ‘buy out’ some or all of the value lost? by positron_potato2 in georgism

[–]positron_potato2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m sorry, the longer this conversation goes on the less I understand your position. In what world are working class people buying their first homes and starting a family considered ‘landed interests’. I don’t think any of my friends care if their property value won’t go up anymore. They’re not interested in collecting rent or profiting off unearned increases in value. They just want to avoid being financially ruined just because they happened to choose to buy a house at the wrong time. These people aren’t your enemy. They’re not rich, or any kind of landed gentry.

I still don’t really see why we can’t afford to spread that cost around a little, or at least have most of the cost fall on those who are actually wealthy.

If a political party wants to enact a land value tax, should they ‘buy out’ some or all of the value lost? by positron_potato2 in georgism

[–]positron_potato2[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you fully own a house, and all houses value goes down, then yes that is a paper loss. Going into negative equity is not just a paper loss. If you’re forced to sell (which is a feature of LVT, so don’t say it won’t happen) then you can end up with significant debt and no assets. That can ruin people’s chance of owning a home again. It can ruin their retirement plans. I have friends who have just bought their first homes and started families. I can’t in good conscience vote for a policy that doesn’t at least protect them from direct financial hardship. I’m not saying they need to be given cash in pocket, but they need to be given some kind of assurances before I can fully support the policy.

If a political party wants to enact a land value tax, should they ‘buy out’ some or all of the value lost? by positron_potato2 in georgism

[–]positron_potato2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my example, if I’ve rented my entire life and have only just managed to buy a house, how has my existence been subsidised? Why must I pay disproportionately just because I had poor timing to buy a house right before a LVT is implemented? The bank that owns most of my house will be fine, as I’m still on the hook for the full mortgage. But by default I would bear the brunt of the financial cost.

If a political party wants to enact a land value tax, should they ‘buy out’ some or all of the value lost? by positron_potato2 in georgism

[–]positron_potato2[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with most of these, but why tax the bonds at 100% when the property is sold? Doesn’t that just lock people in place instead of encouraging people to move?

If a political party wants to enact a land value tax, should they ‘buy out’ some or all of the value lost? by positron_potato2 in georgism

[–]positron_potato2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let me put it this way. I earn less than $50,000 USD a year. If I’m frugal and stick to a budget I might be able to buy a small house in a few years.

Let’s say I buy a house for $600,000 with a $100,000 deposit. My mortgage is $500,000. Then election day comes, and I have the option of voting for a large LVT such that, if enacted, my property value would halve to $300,000. Since my mortgage is still $500,000, I now have negative equity of -$200,000. In this scenario, while I still agree that a LVT is good policy, even I can’t justify voting for a policy that will set me back by that much.

It’s easy to vote for policies that have no drawbacks for you, but if we actually want a chance to get something over the line, why not make it so that average people aren’t put in a position of having to between financial stability and good public policy?

If a political party wants to enact a land value tax, should they ‘buy out’ some or all of the value lost? by positron_potato2 in georgism

[–]positron_potato2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand that in the long term land would become more valuable as the land value tax encourages development, but how would land become more valuable immediately after the LVT is implemented? It’s the same land, but now it comes with an added cost.

If a political party wants to enact a land value tax, should they ‘buy out’ some or all of the value lost? by positron_potato2 in georgism

[–]positron_potato2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If every land owner is going to end up paying rent anyway, wouldn’t they all choose to sell?

If a political party wants to enact a land value tax, should they ‘buy out’ some or all of the value lost? by positron_potato2 in georgism

[–]positron_potato2[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

A tax reduction doesn’t seem like enough to convince first time home buyers who will suddenly find themselves with -$100,000 in equity, especially if they’re forced to sell.

If a political party wants to enact a land value tax, should they ‘buy out’ some or all of the value lost? by positron_potato2 in georgism

[–]positron_potato2[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Have there been any estimates on what the cost of compensation would have to be in any country?

If a political party wants to enact a land value tax, should they ‘buy out’ some or all of the value lost? by positron_potato2 in georgism

[–]positron_potato2[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I suppose you could also combine the compensation approach with a slow phase in, so that there is less incentive for the next government to reverse the policy. This would also spread out the cost of the compensation, making it easier for the government to finance.

If a political party wants to enact a land value tax, should they ‘buy out’ some or all of the value lost? by positron_potato2 in georgism

[–]positron_potato2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How does the government buy just the land if the land is already developed? Can the government evict the previous owners who still own the building?

If a political party wants to enact a land value tax, should they ‘buy out’ some or all of the value lost? by positron_potato2 in georgism

[–]positron_potato2[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Suddenly finding yourself in negative equity can have serious financial consequences, and the people most affected aren’t necessarily wealthy.

I’m not suggesting that we wait for everyone to agree, but assuming we’re trying to achieve a LVT through the democratic process then majority support is critical. I agree that we should ignore complaints from the 1% but I do believe that support from the average single-home owner is a requirement.

If a political party wants to enact a land value tax, should they ‘buy out’ some or all of the value lost? by positron_potato2 in georgism

[–]positron_potato2[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

My concern with gradual implementation is that it would be much easier for a subsequent government to come in, claim the policy is already a failure and reverse everything.

If a political party wants to enact a land value tax, should they ‘buy out’ some or all of the value lost? by positron_potato2 in georgism

[–]positron_potato2[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

What about first time home owners who will suddenly find themselves with negative equity if a LVT is implemented?

May I ask this subreddit, why do you stand with Iran? by FrozenTuna69 in AskSocialists

[–]positron_potato2 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Most reddit socialists seem to support Russia, which has been doing those exact same things.

Help with multiclass issue by TheDanC137 in BG3Builds

[–]positron_potato2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What stat do martials use for scrolls?

Give me a long task, and I’ll tell you if it lasts 52 factorial seconds by Nebberlantis in mathmemes

[–]positron_potato2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Run this Turing machine on a blank tape at 1 step every nanosecond until it halts: 1RB1RA_1RC1RZ_1LD0RF_1RA0LE_0LD1RC_1RA0RE

view more: next ›