Thread

1. throwitaway222 · 1790469638 · focus · HN ↗

   I guess here's an issue. I bought 13 acres - mostly because I hate hearing basketballs bouncing, other people's TVs, and "boom cars".

   So if we're going to start taxing me at a million per year, can I start taxing those loud people a million a year so I can live in the city to pay for medical bills for my brain to go through the bouncing basketball.

   Mind you, everyone else in my area has 10 - 15 acres and it's just a dead area. Just people that ran away from the city. There's absolutely no "value" in this land as no one wants to even be here and drive 40 minutes to get to a grocery store.

   1. loeg · 1790469837 · focus · HN ↗

      LVT is assessed on land value. Your 13 rural acres aren't insanely valuable and would not be assessed a million dollars a year under a Georgian model.

      1. throwitaway222 · 1790469928 · focus · HN ↗

         Ok, that makes sense to me then. I thought I was going to be taxed for unused land.

         1. crooked-v · 1790479319 · focus · HN ↗

            The point of Georgism is to get rid of the 'unused' part. You're just taxed on land, full stop, based on the most valuable things that could probably be done with it right now.

            Land in a city center? Hefty taxes, identical for a parking lot and a skyscraper, because the parking lot could be a skyscraper instead.

            Land in a low population rural area? Low taxes, because the likely uses are homes or businesses that could be built in any other rural area.

            1. RandomLensman · 1790492186 · focus · HN ↗

               So the idea is to make cities denser? Is maximum density use what we really want? What about industry, data centers, etc., that could be built in rural areas - wouldn't that push land value up there a lot?

               1. knowaveragejoe · 1790493118 · focus · HN ↗

                  The idea is to encourage more efficient use of land. In urban areas of the US that usually means more density since they aren't actually all that dense(the oft cited example being surface parking lots in downtown areas, this isn't a very efficient use). There's a lot of other baggage to make that work well, imk - better infrastructure and transit come to mind.

                  1. RandomLensman · 1790494434 · focus · HN ↗

                     My concern is that the endpoint of most efficient land use might not be a great one.

                     1. crooked-v · 1790494988 · focus · HN ↗

                        Why?

                        1. RandomLensman · 1790495222 · focus · HN ↗

                           Could be shoe-box sized flats or nothing even for any human living at all, for example. The most efficient land use need not be "nice".

                           1. loeg · 1790520627 · focus · HN ↗

                              It's just one local revenue stream, comparable to property tax. Nothing about it requires or precludes any other policy goal like making cities "nice" places to live.

                              1. RandomLensman · 1790528462 · focus · HN ↗

                                 If the revenue stream weren't that big, would it change the use of land much?

                                 1. loeg · 1790531779 · focus · HN ↗

                                    Maybe we can just make small, directionally correct policy changes? With slightly better-aligned incentives? Even if they are modest.
                           2. crooked-v · 1790568873 · focus · HN ↗

                              Most cities in the US aren't even near 'a little bit efficient', let alone 'most efficient'. You're worrying about what happens if the waddling baby at the starting line on the football field runs out past the end zone and keeps going onto the highway.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.