If you show up at the tax assessor's office with a check for more than the self-reported value of my home, realistically plus the premium the government pays in eminent domain cases, you get the title. That idea is pretty much "eminent domain for all."
This is terrible. I don't want to loose a priceless family heirloom (grandma's Sheraton-style rocking chair from 1890s) just because someone wants it and can write a check for $1 more than the assessed value. That discounts sentimental value. And if I now have to declare sentimental value and pay taxes on it, I'd rather burn it to the ground (grandma would approve).
A lot of people hate eminent domain too, for that exact reason. I think libertarians want to get rid of it entirely because it's an involuntary transaction.
Not being born to a grandma who could afford a life stable enough to preserve and pass down such a chair is also an involuntary transaction, but libertarians don’t seem to talk about that.
That seems really annoying to deal with. It's possible it would lead to a better society eventually, but in the short term I'd rather speculators not buy my shitbox car out from under me because they spotted the chip shortage before I did.
I think that's the point, to free up all the economic activity that's being held up by patents, copyright and land underuse, and to get fair tax assessment on assets previously exempt from property taxes as a bonus.
I don't see how this has anything to do with patents or copyright. Presumably, those would be subject to this seizure mechanism and thus flow to those most willing to enforce their claims.
Like, 99% of the activity under such a mechanism would be transfers of financial assets.
A power law land value tax would take care of most of the problem at almost no cost (since land is assessed regularly anyway).
This should completely replace income tax. Copyright terms should also be 10 years, maybe 15 max. Patents could probably stay as is, but I don’t see any problem reducing them too.
> power law land value tax would take care of most of the problem at almost no cost (since land is assessed regularly anyway)
Sure. This is a totally different proposal.
Would note that you could go a long way to making this proposal electorally appealing by exempting primary residences. (In my experience, the assessed value of a home is at best loosely related to its market value.)
It would be electorally appealing, but would fail at one of the main benefits.
The number one waste of space in the US is people’s excessively large footprint, causing enormous consumption of energy and infrastructure costs that are borne by future generations.
All these detached single family homes on 0.1+ acre lots are massively expensive and the people living in them hardly pay taxes proportionate to the benefit they receive from the government. Instead, our society takes from the working class via income tax.
If you want to live in a detached home on a large lot, be ready to pay the appropriate land value taxes.
If you want to conserve and use less of society’s resources, live in an apartment building.
Since the tax formula would be a power law function, it would inherently not be punitive to the vast majority of Americans who don’t live on outsize plots of land.
The more stuff you move further distances, the more energy you need.
Obviously, more people living in a square mile will use less energy per person than fewer people living in a square mile.
Think about all the energy needed to move water/sewer/trash/gas/police/ambulances/etc in and around a neighborhood where 100 people live in a Barcelona style communal living versus 100 detached homes on 0.1 acres each.
The huge knock on effects of the latter is that it then necessitates personal vehicle transport, which then compounds into more space being needed for huge arterial roads and highways, which then makes neighborhoods unwalkable, further necessitating personal vehicle transport, and so on and so forth.
> DOA. Partly due to the electoral college. Partly due to American optimism and aspiration. Perfect is the enemy of the good.
I’m under no illusion, but I also don’t see a need to inconvenience myself with half measures if my countrymen are not willing to do what is necessary.
Most of the blue collar workers I know live in single family suburban homes. Factories are rarely located in urban centers, and corporate dormitories are no longer much of a thing in this country.
I don’t see why what color collar someone is labeled as is relevant. My assertion is simply that occupying surface area consumes an incredible amount of resources that are not proportionately represented in today’s methods of taxation.
You've switched from arguing for a land value tax to arguing for densification. LVTs shoulod cause densification ceteris paribus.
Zoning, however, is the mutandis. LVTs absent zoning reform would not be expected to change much in cities. Zoning reform absent LVTs would spark a systemic boom in densification.
Zoning reform and LVTs are thus orthogonal, with the scant interaction being almost entirely defined by the ratio of unbuilt structures due exclusively to zoning or land hoarding. I asserted that ratio is close to one, due to ample evidence for the former. I asked you for evidence of the latter; "physics" is not a response.
> I also don’t see a need to inconvenience myself with half measures if my countrymen are not willing to do what is necessary
This is, by definition, extremism. It's generally seen as a red flag, communicating lack of commitment and/or dogmatic delusions.
>You've switched from arguing for a land value tax to arguing for densification. LVTs shoulod cause densification ceteris paribus.
Yes, but exempting homes from LVTs would counteract some of the incentive for densification. I would even go so far as to say excessive space for homes (which goes along with infrastructure that prioritizes cars) is causing knock on effects like kids not being able to roam around outside, and hence causing having kids to be a bigger burden, and so on and so forth.
>Zoning reform absent LVTs would spark a systemic boom in densification.
I would challenge this assumption, as many people prefer suburban quality of life that depend on not living in densely populated communities. Could be from simply preferring more space for themselves or their cars to being in school districts with higher proportions of kids from richer parents.
>I asked you for evidence of the latter;
I am not sure what you are referring to by former and latter here, but when I mean "waste of space", I mean front a big picture view in terms of resource/energy consumption on a societal level as well as knock on effects of sedentary lifestyles, less interaction with neighbors, and so on.
Physics is the answer to the resource/energy consumption part of why it is a "waste of space". If the goal was to ever meaningfully reduce emissions or consumption of various resources, then it would have to involve denser communities.
I would say that both zoning reform and LVT is necessary to accomplish broad reform.
>This is, by definition, extremism. It's generally seen as a red flag, communicating lack of commitment and/or dogmatic delusions.
Unfortunately, my conclusion from observing humanity so far is that it is extremely difficult to reach consensus when the decision involves lots of short term individual sacrifice in exchange for long term societal benefit. I would say that my hopes now lie with technological progress, rather than say, paper straws or recycling plastics, as those seem to be distractions meant to placate.
The unstated assumption here is that efficiency is the most important thing, rather than any of a number of other things we could value like stability, security, safety, reliability, and so on. The problem with efficiency-driven ideas is that they almost always will result in a bunch of people with money descending on a bunch of people without money and exploiting the difference to...make money.
