patrick.net

Well gee Pat thanks! You know, I like being a tenant sooo much I bought the company!
www.youtube.com/embed/qf22bddvLnc

I may as well go buy some tobacco and alcohol stocks now...

Patrick says

non-productive rent-seeking helps no one but the parasite, and harms whole countries. It is an evil we should eliminate.

It is important to remember in the process that we ought to avoid creating a new class of rent-seekers with even greater monopolistic pricing power (i.e. greater rent-seeking opportunity). Georgist may not consider land capital, but Communists certainly did, and they did take all land ownership under government and management under government bureaucrats (just as a Georgist policy would effectively result); the result of that centralized ownership was catastrophic: people stopped making improve/maintain to land, which in turn led to crop failures and mass starvation.

Even in American history, various utopian experiments in the 19th century and the original MayFlower Compact experience itself in the early 17th century showed that concentrated/collective land ownership must lead to disaster: as more than 50% of the MayFlower passengers starved to death in the first year as they farmed the land collectively. It was only after dividing up the land into small individual family plots that led to the first bumper crop harvest and Thanksgiving. People simply had zero incentive to improve collectively owned land. In fact, the nuclear family and agriculture (farming and herding animals) appeared in human history about the same time, around 10,000 years ago, perhaps because of precisely this new concept of private ownership, of land and of uterus content being from one single man instead of previously mistakenly thought of as being derived from all men who had ejaculated into that uterus. The private ownership created enormous incentive for each man to work the land, instead of focusing on humoring and conning the women for reproductive opportunity. Ever since then, every attempt at abolishing private/individual ownership led directly to reversion from civilization to primitivism; witness the modern urban ghetto phenomenon.

Empty lots generate tons of income for their parasitical owners simply by increasing in value due to the work of others near the land.

Let's not forget about opportunity cost. Leaving a SFBA lot empty for the last 30 years would have meant foregoing tons of rent income every year while having to pay property tax at the same time every year, not a winning strategy at all compared to building a house on the lot and renting it out (or parking the money in an index fund); holding an empty lot in Detroit for the last 30 years would have cost the owner almost the entire capital . . . the owner probably would have abandoned the empty lot a long time ago after skipping property tax.

It's easy to accuse the lottery winner of receiving unearned income, despite statistically buying lottery tickets is actually a losing game.

It would be a mistake to assume centralized government land management would result in better development than private/individual landownership; in fact, a centralized system would result in far greater rent-seeking by the government bureaucrats in charge, unchecked by a competing land owners just down the street.

The problem cannot be resolved until parasites' assets are confiscated, they are stripped of passport and citizenship and deported on a red eye flight to nicaragua.

Patrick says

To be fair, the construction and maintenance of a building is productive work, so rent on a building should not be taxed at all.

But rent from mere non-productive ownership of land should be taxed at 100%. Owning land benefits no one and produces nothing.

Patrick, you are being confusing here. If land is non-productive, it would be useless and there would be no rent collected on it. If you can build something on it, the land is automatically productive, serves a purpose, and a return on it can be expected.

Malcolm says

Are car rental places social parasites as well? Are hotels social parasites?

What about a parking lot in a major city? It's land with nothing on it, but very productive.

--------
Philosophically, no human can own land, because the first piece of land ever to be sold was stolen property. It was never paid for.

Strategist says

Philosophically, no human can own land, because the first piece of land ever to be sold was stolen property. It was never paid for.

All land belongs to all humans on this planet. Anyone should be allowed to lease it, based on fare market value, with the proceeds equally divided among 7 billion people. All proceeds from oil and mineral extraction would also be divided among 7 billion people.
Anything built on that land belongs to whoever built it, and deserves fair rent for it.

bob2356 says

Ah the missing numbers have arrived, now I see how you can make an economic case based on such solid research. Like how much of the US economy is the profits on land sales and how it harms the whole country. But hey it's true, it's true.

The "No Numbers" argument employed again in the past few hours.

Like honor system voting: Everybody's on the honor system, and we don't check. Because we don't check, we have no numbers. Because we have no numbers, it doesn't exist and there's no reason to complain.

We don't count the money we weren't reimbursed, therefore we have no numerical data, therefore medical costs of illegals are no problem because there is no data on what we don't track.

If you can't find hard data on things that nobody tracks (purposefully), then all claims are floosh dismissed.

(Gee, maybe we should gather the information to see if there's some there, there.)

Patrick says

To be fair, the construction and maintenance of a building is productive work, so rent on a building should not be taxed at all.

But rent from mere non-productive ownership of land should be taxed at 100%. Owning land benefits no one and produces nothing.

Let me get this straight. Land gets taxed, buildings don't. So your example of this working in action is Hong Kong where land has no tax and buildings are taxed. Am I missing something here?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

We don't count the money we weren't reimbursed, therefore we have no numerical data, therefore medical costs of illegals are no problem because there is no data on what we don't track.

I damn sure count my money. How about you sell me your house and I'll give you a envelope full of money that I guess is the right amount and you won't count. You can call yourself reimbursed. Let me know when. Have faith.

There are plenty of numbers. Just because you don't want to accept them doesn't mean they aren't there. If you think the numbers are wrong present the correct numbers with something a little more substantial than I guess. I'll be waiting, and waiting, and waiting.

bob2356 says

I damn sure count my money. How about you sell me your house and I'll give you a envelope full of money that I guess is the right amount and you won't count. You can call yourself reimbursed. Let me know when. Have faith.

Not at all what I am discussing.

It's more like the Swedish Government policy of not recording the Race of perps, in order to remove the claim that most of the violence is from migrants and non-Swedish ethnics.

"Well, we don't track how many rapes, grenade attacks, theft, etc. is by ethnicity anymore, so you can no longer say immigration and crime is linked! Gotcha!"

bob2356 says

There are plenty of numbers. Just because you don't want to accept them doesn't mean they aren't there. If you think the numbers are wrong present the correct numbers with something a little more substantial than I guess. I'll be waiting, and waiting, and waiting.

We've been over this several times, the hospital study admitted it did not track non-reimbursed expenses. It could be $10 or $10B. We have no idea, because they didn't account. You assume it's near 0. I suspect it's in the billions.

Strategist says

If land is non-productive, it would be useless and there would be no rent collected on it.

I did not say that land itself is non-productive.

Mere ownership of land is obviously non-productive. Owning something is not the same as building something, right?

Here's a bit more about the land value tax (LVT) in Hong Kong and Singapore:

The city-state Singapore, founded on Georgist tax principles, reached a tax rate on land of 16%. Hong Kong existed only on crown land, funding 4/5 of their budget with 2/5 of site Rent (Yu-Hung Hong, Landlines, 1999 March, Lincoln Inst., Cambridge, MA). The city uses land rent, not subsidy, to fund their new metro and in its suburbs grows much of its own food. Hong Kong enjoys low taxes, low prices, high investment, and often the highest per capita salaries. The city is often voted the world’s best city for business and the freest for residents.

https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/successfull-examples-of-land-value-tax-reforms/2011/02/05

I have a hard time parsing the current Hong Kong tax laws though. https://asiabc.co/guide-to-hk/taxation-accounting/property-tax-of-hong-kong-explained/

Patrick says

The key is that we have the power to tax non-productive rent-seeking at a much higher rate than the rate on productive work.

I'm gonna disagree, and use your methodology for better house buying experience against you. More information about which landlords are good, and which are scummy is what's needed. Government never fixes anything. They will certainly promise to, but end result will be more money for them, and same problems for you.

Need better ways to identify, and make widely known which landlords are scummy, free market will take care of the rest.

Communism is state control of capital. Land is not capital.

According to Marx, Communism is the elimination of private property. "Private Property" specifically includes land.

I am sure you all heard the quote "The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property."

TwoScoopsPlissken says

We've been over this several times, the hospital study admitted it did not track non-reimbursed expenses. It could be $10 or $10B. We have no idea, because they didn't account. You assume it's near 0. I suspect it's in the billions.

Now you are just being absurd as is bringing the subject into this thread. . Google uncompensated care instead of non reimbursed. There are tons of sources with the exact numbers along with the data sets and methodology. Now that the new CMS accounting rules for medicaid calculations are in effect the number will drop some going forward but it's an accounting change not a payment change. Just because you pretend something doesn't exist because you don't like it doesn't mean it really doesn't exist.

Seems to me that buying properties to lease out is like any business. The business owners put up money to buy capital equipment (property in this case), and rent it out, which provides a service that is bought on the open market. It's not fundamentally different than buying a machine that produces toothbrushes, and then operating the machine and selling toothbrushes.
In the case of land, the real value of the land (part of capital) generally doesn't appreciate or depreciate. It goes along with inflation. However, it might appreciate or depreciate markedly depending on the location, and this is a risk that the landlord faces as well as a potential upside.

You could tax the fuck out of land, but that would shift the cost benefit analysis of being a landlord, which would likely make buying a bit cheaper, and renting more expensive. Buyers might have a lower mortgage, but they would face higher taxes. It's hard to say how this would impact total cost to various individuals, but I would say that the total taxes on that segment go up, total costs would as well. Anyway, land is already taxed quite heavily. Taxes make up a significant portion of total ownership/rent costs in most places.

It's idiotic to buy land and not use it or rent it out, so there really are not many landlords who are buying just to speculate without utilizing the land.

NuttBoxer says

Patrick says

The key is that we have the power to tax non-productive rent-seeking at a much higher rate than the rate on productive work.

I'm gonna disagree, and use your methodology for better house buying experience against you. More information about which landlords are good, and which are scummy is what's needed. Government never fixes anything. They will certainly promise to, but end result will be more money for them, and same problems for you.

Need better ways to identify, and make widely known which landlords are scummy, free market will take care of the rest.

Landlords who build or maintain buildings are providing a service to the public. I don't think that's scummy at all. It's valuable work.

My point is only that merely owning land is not a service to anyone.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

It's not fundamentally different than buying a machine that produces toothbrushes, and then operating the machine and selling toothbrushes.

No, it's fundamentally completely the opposite. A machine that produces toothbrushes was produced by someone's labor, and they should get compensated for that labor by the market, or by selling their machine, and they should not be taxed much or maybe not at all. People should get to keep most or all of the result of their own labor.

But land was not produced by anyone's labor. No one should be paid for simply extracting land-rent from the public. So land rent should be taxed very highly.

See the difference? Doing something productive vs doing nothing productive.

Patrick says

Hong Kong enjoys low taxes, low prices, high investment, and often the highest per capita salaries.

Really? It didn't make the top 20 last year. All those cities filled with parasitic land lords beat it.

HeadSet says

According to Marx, Communism is the elimination of private property. "Private Property" specifically includes land.

No, Communism is the "common ownership of the means of production", by which they mean both land and capital.

We should distinguish between land and capital. Land is land, easy enough (ok, there are edge cases where land gets created by human labor, but ignore that for now). Capital is everything produced by human labor: machines, buildings, software, etc.

Georgism would simply tax land very highly, and not tax labor or commerce at all. That it.

Some huge benefits:

* No one can hide land, and tax records are public, so all government income becomes clear.
* No one can escape paying the tax. If they are on land, they are directly or indirectly (via rent) paying the land value tax.
* We can eliminate the entire income tax and sales tax bureaucracy.
* It prevents the establishment of a hereditary aristocracy that monopolizes most land and in effect makes everyone else their servants.

Patrick says

But land was not produced by anyone's labor. No one should be paid for simply extracting land-rent from the public.

Land started with little value. To the extent that it has much value is based on how it was developed and what has been built around the land. Both the gain and loss in land value over time should go to the person who put their own savings at risk to help develop it. I find it quite ironic that you believe that being a landlord is a terrible deal in many markets, SF in particular, yet you think that landlords in these places are rent seekers and get too good of a deal. You think that owning land is such a bad deal that you won't even be your own landlord. Yet somehow, you think that owning land should be taxes more heavily.

Do you think that all land taxes should be increased or only taxes on people who are not using the land in a way that you approve?

There is a difference between something that is found in nature and something that is produced by a human. However, I'm not sure how this forms the basis for a good tax policy. You would presumably tax the shit out of all natural products, and lower taxes on all products that were made from human effort? What about things that are made by a machine using a natural resource such as oil to do the work? The machine is man made, but once it is paid for, the natural resource is doing the work. Do you think that tax policy should favor humans with a shovel over a mechanized digging machine? What about urban sprawl. Your tax plan punishes people who own land in expensive (urban) areas, and it favors people who live in rural (cheap) areas. Why do you think that this is a good tax policy?

Do you think that buying stocks is more 'righteous' than investing in real estate, even if you are just buying stock in a company who is in that business? Do you have similar disdain for people in the natural resources / mining business? After all, they are just selling something that was made by natural processes many years ago.

bob2356 says

It notice that the GDP per capita isn't adjusted by PPP.

Zurich is incredibly expensive for a huge range of goods and services. Hong Kong is world famous for cheap eats, shopping, services, etc.

Oslo also.

I really doubt you can get Chicken Soup, Dental Work, and a Haircut anything like the same price in Hong Kong. Nor are the taxes anything alike (goes for Zurich too)

Edit: I hope Bridgeport isn't Bridgeport, CT. That place is a goddamn shithole, a very neoliberal city with wealthy greenbelt and burbs, but absolutely blighted core.

Another thing I'd like to see: Same states Ex-Financial industry Salaries. Just to illustrate the wonderful, better-for-everybody world Neoliberals have created.

Patrick says

Georgism would simply tax land very highly, and not tax labor or commerce at all

How would land be taxed if it's owned by the government like hong kong and singapore? Tax by definition is when the government charges a private individual. Still makes zero sense. Are you saying the government owns the land and LEASES it? That's what HK does. I'm sure there would never be any corruption in government leasing. Just look at the DOD so see how it never happens.

Indonesia, Myanmar, and Laos are all leasehold in the same region. Why aren't they as wealthy as Honk Kong if georgism is the key to prosperity? Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea are freehold and much wealthier. Maybe, just maybe the whole rent seeking thing doesn't make much difference.

Patrick says

* We can eliminate the entire income tax and sales tax bureaucracy.

Want to calculate the land tax amount if it replaces income and sales tax in the us? Hint $3,650 per acre assuming every single acre is taxed. That would make mid west farmers with thousands of acres really happy. Back out all the government owned public land the number goes up to $5615 per acre. That would really be a help to family farms. Oh wait, we could set up a giant government bureaucracy to determine which land gets taxed how much. They could have 5 and 10 year plans. That sounds familiar for some reason.

BTW why does hong kong have income taxes, stamp taxes, and business taxes still?

bob2356 says

How would land be taxed if it's owned by the government like hong kong and singapore?

I'm not advocating government ownership of land, only higher taxes on land, and much lower income tax and sales tax. Same total tax most likely, only more efficient and fair economically.

bob2356 says

That would make mid west farmers with thousands of acres really happy. Back out all the government owned public land the number goes up to $5615 per acre. That would really be a help to family farms.

Obvious straw man. No one is suggesting that all land be taxed equally. It should be proportional to the value. But yes, another way we will pay the land vaule tax is via food, which we already do now to some degree.

bob2356 says

Why aren't they as wealthy as Honk Kong if georgism is the key to prosperity?

Again, a misrepresentation. I did not say that Georgism is the key to prosperity, only that it is economically efficient and fair.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

It notice that the GDP per capita isn't adjusted by PPP.

PPP is the most bogus metric there is. By the time all the data is gathered it's useless.. There is a good reason anyone dealing in money uses Market Exchange and anyone dealing in the academic ivory tower world (ngo's, policy wonks, foundations, etc.) uses PPP. The big mac index is probably just as good if not better..

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Zurich is incredibly expensive for a huge range of goods and services. Hong Kong is world famous for cheap eats, shopping, services, etc.

and rents higher than London or Sydney.

Patrick says

Obvious straw man. No one is suggesting that all land be taxed equally. It should be proportional to the value. But yes, another way we will pay the land vaule tax is via food, which we already do now to some degree.

Why is the heart of the issue a straw man?. How much would the land tax have to be and who would pay what part of it is the ONLY issue that determines if georgism is economically efficient and fair. . WTF is a straw man about that? You keep coming back to it's true because I believe it should be true. Are you sure you aren't a college professor?


www.youtube.com/embed/bRl_sBg6GX8

bob2356 says

PPP is the most bogus metric there is. By the time all the data is gathered it's useless.. There is a good reason anyone dealing in money uses Market Exchange and anyone dealing in the academic ivory tower world (ngo's, policy wonks, foundations, etc.) uses PPP. The big mac index is probably just as good if not better..

And raw GDP is also useless because of cost of living differences between developed countries. Yes, it's useful for figuring out Swaziland isn't Sweden, but not the relative advantages of living in either Sweden or Switzerland.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

And raw GDP is also useless because of cost of living differences between developed countries. Yes, it's useful for figuring out Swaziland isn't Sweden, but not the relative advantages of living in either Sweden or Switzerland.

Anyone who can't figure out the relative advantages of living in either Sweden or Swaziland without PPP really shouldn't be moving.

Again, by the time PPP gets calculated it's at best a very rough guide. Economies and exchanges move too fast for PPP to work very well. There are also far too many local variables to account for. Stuff you have no clue makes a difference until you are on the ground. .I've seen how poor PPP is both personally while moving around the world and professionally when working with international medical recruiting. Go look at the PPP doctors salary calculations as an example.. They are absurd. So many factors aren't accounted for the chart is useless.

dublin hillz says

The problem cannot be resolved until parasites' assets are confiscated, they are stripped of passport and citizenship and deported on a red eye flight to nicaragua.

Isn't that what the Russian/Soviets did in the early 1920's and Chinese commies did in the early 1950's after taking power? Except for skipping the flight, just executing all landlords while confiscating their land. The result in both countries (and every country that copied that "mass liquidation" method) was mass starvation: 20 million farmers starved to death in Soviet Union and over 50 million farmers starved to death in Maoist China . . . simply because the political bureaucrats replacing the landlords managed the land much worse, as all they cared about were personal political career (promotions) and food for themselves while starved the peasants through forcible confiscation of food that the previous landlords would never have tried. Blood sucking by bureaucrats turned out to be far worse than "blood sucking" by local landlords.

When the method was copied to Cambodia in the 1970's, fully 1/4 of that country's population died under the regime of Pol Pot, a "well educated" math teacher who turned socialist revolutionary.

Patrick says

Here's a bit more about the land value tax (LVT) in Hong Kong and Singapore:

The city-state Singapore, founded on Georgist tax principles, reached a tax rate on land of 16%. Hong Kong existed only on crown land, funding 4/5 of their budget with 2/5 of site Rent (Yu-Hung Hong, Landlines, 1999 March, Lincoln Inst., Cambridge, MA). The city uses land rent, not subsidy, to fund their new metro and in its suburbs grows much of its own food. Hong Kong enjoys low taxes, low prices, high investment, and often the highest per capita salaries. The city is often voted the world’s best city for business and the freest for residents.

https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/successfull-examples-of-land-value-tax-reforms/2011/02/05

Thanks for the link. Some of the content there however does not pass the smell test:

1. "in its suburbs grows much of its own food" is very misleading if not outright fraudulent. Hong Kong imports 95% of its food, as detailed in this link:
https://www.business-sweden.se/contentassets/fb4f875126144371b135b19a3c37ac6a/hong-kong-food-and-beverage-market-2016.pdf

2. "founded on Georgist tax principles, reached a tax rate on land of 16%" is once again very misleading. What Singapore and Hong Kong have is not a land tax or 15-16% land value tax; what they have is a Property Tax on current year rent revenue/income. For example, if a hypothetical unit rents for $1000/mo, that rent revenue is subject to Property Tax at 15% after a standard deduction of 20% (unless the owner choose to itemize cost for deduction); so, $1000 x (100 - 20)% x 15% = $120. So annual property tax would be $1440 on rental revenue of $12000. Considering that Hong Kong real estate routinely trade for 300x monthly rent or higher, the hypothetical property is likely trading for $300,000 or higher, the effective property tax in that case is 0.48%! Much much lower than just about any US city or town. Only Manhattan, Brooklyn and Cambridge (MA) come even close to that low rate in the sub-1% range. Most US cities and towns demand 2% if not higher! Never mind "Georgist tax principles," the prosperity of Singapore and Hong Kong is due to their (historically) smaller tax bite overall period (before their new welfare state policies in recent years).

3. The article also cited the case of Taiwan land reform after KMT regime arrived on the island. That case may have come close to "Georgist tax principle" at the time. However, in reality, it was a one-time looting against the 20 or less landlords that owned almost all the land on the island (and probably had close ties to the former Japanese colonial government and spoke Japanese). The landlords were given paper money for their land, and the paper money quickly inflated away in the subsequent decades (if the former landlords did not invest the money in industry). It was less "Georgist" than one-time looting against the local rich on an island that the new regime had just conquered (Taiwan having been reverted to China/KMT at the end of WWII, without referendum), and the KMT regime desperately needed money to sustain a large military to defend against the Communists on their tail, and the commies would have treated the landlords even worse (liquidating them all in Soviet/Stalinist style). The new owners of smaller plots worked the land harder but their taxes didn't go up in keeping with "Georgist tax principles." It's not even clear if the breaking up of farm land in Taiwan into smaller plots even made farming more productive in the long run . . . as mechanization of farming (like in the US) is not possible on those small lots. What brought prosperity to Taiwan was light industry and then tech industry, neither of which had much to do with the land reform.

Also, Hong Kong government had a long history of auctioning government land (the government owns all the land there by default) to the highest bidder (if we call that Georgist, as it did put the burden of running government almost entirely on land, before the introduction of income tax in the last decade or so). The result was extreme concentration of the construction/development industry, and extremely high housing price. Most people in Hong Kong have lived in tiny apartments for decades, while most of the land of the territory was left undeveloped. Some people there have lived almost their entire lives in pods not much bigger than one level of a bunk bed. If that kind of policy had been tried in the US, we'd have constant riots on our hands long before apartment sizes are reduced to that small.

There will be no land value tax. Talking about or thinking about it is a complete waste of time.

The only way to bring price down is supply like what happened in 2002- 2008. Then supplies Kapoof on 2009 to 2014 and the results are predictable. If you want to look into how rent will look, just look at supplies complete now. Its that simple.

Reality says

Also, Hong Kong government had a long history of auctioning government land to the highest bidder

I think you mean the leasing rights, not the actual land itself.

Nice look into the article. I was planning to read it in full tomorrow.

If anyone thinks landlords are parasites. I love them to move out and see how far that gets him or her. They'll get no place to stay and they'll beg the old landlord to take them back.

I know mine is (a parasite).

Raised our rent $200 (14% increase, Las Vegas) after 2 1/2 years of on time payments with no calls for anything. Reason given by PM - rents are really going up, with a tone of amazement, slight glee.

Place is not premium, by any stretch of the imagination. With a large desert scrub backyard and two pets, I might as well live outdoors with all the dirt dragged in.

She should rot in hell.

Patrick says

Landlords who build or maintain buildings are providing a service to the public. I don't think that's scummy at all. It's valuable work.

My point is only that merely owning land is not a service to anyone.

When you say don't improve the building, I'm pretty sure we're all thinking slumlords, hence my scummy reference.

I understand the point, but I don't think the government, i.e. taxes, is a solution. Yelp is a start, but if you look at property management companies, is there a single one that doesn't have a terrible Yelp review? We need something better to help good renters distinguish where they will be best appreciated and serviced. I mentioned my ideas on this before.

SFace says

There will be no land value tax.

@SFace why not? Seems like an excellent idea to tax non-productive rent-seeking and stop taxing income and commerce.

Mandy Lifeboats says

I know mine is (a parasite).

Raised our rent $200 (14% increase, Las Vegas) after 2 1/2 years of on time payments with no calls for anything.

Assuming the new lease will last a year, that's 14% increase over 3yrs, or less than 5% a year. My property tax and water bills (city/town monopolies) all have been rising at faster than 5% a year in the last few years. Even that particular landlord of yours is keeping rent increase at slower pace than what a government bureaucracy would have done.

Reason given by PM - rents are really going up, with a tone of amazement, slight glee.

As you can see, she can only raise rent when all her competitors are raising. That's why they are all rising at slower pace than what the town tax collectors and water departments are raising on them, effectively cushioning some of the price increase by those monopolies. If the government bureaucratic monopoly had been in charge of housing, they'd be raising rent even faster.

Place is not premium, by any stretch of the imagination. With a large desert scrub backyard and two pets, I might as well live outdoors with all the dirt dragged in. .

Moving outdoors or buying your own place or moving to a different landlord's house costing you less might just be 3 viable alternatives, and your move will also help keep rent down for other renters.

Patrick says

SFace says

There will be no land value tax.

@SFace why not? Seems like an excellent idea to tax non-productive rent-seeking and stop taxing income and commerce.

What's the difference between sitting on land vs. being a city planner? The latter forcibly collects salary and pension from taxpayers, the former is a volunteering stakes-holder.

Patrick says

SFace says

There will be no land value tax.

@SFace why not? Seems like an excellent idea to tax non-productive rent-seeking and stop taxing income and commerce.

The best ideas in the world does not make it policy. There is absolutely no momentum to change the current property tax system, and there is none for this generation. It's so unpopular that this idea is used almost nowhere. In a way, it is somewhat a land value system anyone because the land more or less drives the tax directly.

I think you mentioned HK and Singapore as model places for LVT. Have you seen condo prices in these places, we are talking 2K a square feet (with 25% of that for common area so its effective $2,500 USD per square feet because we don't count common area) so prices are twice as expensive as SF proper and Manhattan. LVT does not work. In places you think it works, property prices is at puke level.

SFace says

LVT does not work. In places you think it works, property prices is at puke level.

Let's make America the land of million dollar 500 sq ft (150 sq ft of that is common area) studio apartments just like Hong Kong. MAGA.

Even with a land value tax, there will still be a rental market and in places with tons of jobs rents will still be high.

But the economy is much better for everyone (except big landowners) under a land value tax. The tax is non-destructive of work and commerce. Note that salaries in Hong Kong and Singapore are also off the charts.

Patrick says

Note that salaries in Hong Kong and Singapore are also off the charts.

Then why do they rank 9th and 20tn in expat salaries? Using expat salaries is an excellent way to weed out distortions for high cost of living places where low end workers are frequently transient and not counted properly in the averages since the expat workers are much more likely to be same comparable.group in different cities.

Patrick says

But the economy is much better for everyone (except big landowners) under a land value tax. The tax is non-destructive of work and commerce.

and your proof of this is what other than I believe it should be true. Especially since your examples of HK and singapore both have income taxes.