Hacker News Reader

Comment by brutusborn | Hacker News Reader

A better solution is land value taxation because it hits those with old wealth the hardest whilst not distorting markets. Wealth tax and inheritance taxes can be gamed and avoided. Land cannot be moved or hidden. Now that a minority of people own land in many locales, this will soon be a politically acceptable policy.

Georgism made sense in the 1800s and it makes even more sense now.

View on HN

Whenever I bring up the topic of Georgism or land value tax, people look at me like I am mentally ill. The idea of taxing the right to exclusive use over a piece of land - something that no human has ever put effort into existing - is so utterly foreign to most people. Unfortunate.

There was a reform of the German property tax system, since the federal constitutional court ruled that the old system was unfair. The current model allows the 16 states to set up their own system, if they wish so, and interestingly enough, Baden-Württemberg turned the property tax into an actual land value tax, taxing only the land value itself, not the real estate on it. Of course there was a documentary the other day about a land owner crying that he is forced to build more houses to rent out and cover the cost of the LVT. That was the point all along!

Thanks for the example, I didn’t know of any good examples of LVT. Hopefully it becomes more widespread.

Unfortunately it’s not easy to understand why it is so effective, thus why people hear it and assume insanity.

I disagree with it not being easy to understand, on the contrary it makes perfect sense to me. We have the vast earth we live on as humanity and all the land was here long before us and will be here long after we are gone. Now we divide some of this land up and give people exclusive rights to it. How is it not absolutely intuitive to pay everyone else, who is not allowed to use this land, a fee, rent or tax or however you might want to call it, as compensation? In turn, if you use less land to reach the same goal, i.e. you make better, more efficient use, you pay less, just like with any other resource.

The more common "rebuttal" I hear is "well the land lords will just slap it onto the rent, so no use", to which I ask "then why don't they ask for more rent already if the rentors would be willing to pay?"

Then again, people I talk with are against a wealth tax as well, claiming that property would be impossible to account for and value, meanwhile France and Switzerland, two neighbours, have no issues in that regard. At the same time, both Germany and Austria had a wealth tax until very recently.

I like your rebuttal, that is a very simple way to explain it. I’m not very good at explaining concepts so maybe my difficulties are with my method of explanation and not the subject.

Taking land while letting AI usage get away scot-free? We need to close the lid on both sides.

What’s AI?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com