undefined | Better HN

0 pointshardwaresofton4y ago0 comments

> LVT + UBI would accomplish the same thing (and then some) more fairly and efficiently; UBI would subsidize the LVT for your primary residence, while secondary residences (and residences owned by corporations and other non-residents) would see no such benefit.

Sure that could work, but it looks like 5x the complexity and political will required.

Also, I'm not fully sold on UBI, because I haven't heard a convincing argument on why it wouldn't lead to persistent inflation. As the economy moves towards a you-will-own-nothing stance (to be fair, I'm contributing to this in trying to launch and operate SaaS services)

Even if UBI was the answer, the political fight is bigger, I think. Let's just be honest and straightforward about what we (well, some of us -- it is a democratic republic after all) want, we want people to stop speculating on houses and use them for living.

Assuming we can agree on the premise, tax the behavior we want to disincentivize as directly as possible, be clear about why we're doing it. Clear hearts, full hearts, can't lose. Just kidding this is politics so absolutely can lose but you get the idea.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

yellowapple4y ago· 1 in thread

> Sure that could work, but it looks like 5x the complexity and political will required.

I can't speak to the political will, but in terms of complexity the inverse is true: a universally-applicable LVT and universally-applicable UBI is far less complex for everyone involved than trying to navigate a bunch of ad hoc taxes and exemptions.

> Also, I'm not fully sold on UBI, because I haven't heard a convincing argument on why it wouldn't lead to persistent inflation.

It leads to inflation when

1. it's funded through government moneyprinting instead of a solid tax system, and/or

2. it gets captured by landlords who jack up rents in response to the new demand

LVT rather explicitly and directly fixes both of these problems; it provides a maximally-fair and maximally-efficient tax revenue, and it feeds land value increases back into the tax revenue (and therefore UBI disbursements) instead of letting landlords capture it. It's a self-balancing system with no room for inflation to happen (at least not through either LVT or UBI).

> we want people to stop speculating on houses and use them for living.

Which is yet another thing which LVT explicitly and directly addresses. Specifically:

> Assuming we can agree on the premise, tax the behavior we want to disincentivize as directly as possible, be clear about why we're doing it.

The behaviors we want to disincentivize are land speculation and rentseeking. LVT is the most direct disincentive to both, and we Georgists ain't exactly shy about that being the key reason why we believe LVT to be necessary for a free and equitable society; the economic properties are just a nice bonus :)

hardwaresoftonOP4y ago

Apologies for the delay, I missed this somehow.

> I can't speak to the political will, but in terms of complexity the inverse is true: a universally-applicable LVT and universally-applicable UBI is far less complex for everyone involved than trying to navigate a bunch of ad hoc taxes and exemptions.

OK, so I agree that from nothing they would be simpler setups. What I mean to state is that right now, given the current world we live in, changing existing tax rates is easier than introducing and feeling out two entirely new concepts.

> It leads to inflation when > >1. it's funded through government moneyprinting instead of a solid tax system, and/or > >2. it gets captured by landlords who jack up rents in response to the new demand > > LVT rather explicitly and directly fixes both of these problems; it provides a maximally-fair and maximally-efficient tax revenue, and it feeds land value increases back into the tax revenue (and therefore UBI disbursements) instead of letting landlords capture it. It's a self-balancing system with no room for inflation to happen (at least not through either LVT or UBI).

It's not that I'm against LVT or don't think it could be good. My point is that attempting to add LVT and/or UBI are just not practical. They may be theoretically great, but there are other options on the table.

> Which is yet another thing which LVT explicitly and directly addresses. Specifically: > The behaviors we want to disincentivize are land speculation and rentseeking. LVT is the most direct disincentive to both, and we Georgists ain't exactly shy about that being the key reason why we believe LVT to be necessary for a free and equitable society; the economic properties are just a nice bonus :)

I agree! I just think that LVT is a bigger lift than "just" raising taxes on the behavior we want to disincentivize specifically.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse