embedded machine learning research engineer - georgist - urbanist - environmentalist
http://gameofrent.com/content/can-land-be-accurately-assessed
The key downsides of income taxes, though, are it requires tracking everyone’s income, and it’s very easy to hide income by doing under-the-table work and getting paid in cash. In contrast, it’s impossible to hide land.
Wow, even Terre Haute. Almost went there for college (Rose-Hulman), but decided against it in part because the city itself was so small and sprawling. It must’ve been 1000x livelier back in the streetcar days when things were probably more densely built and less obscenely car-centric.
Also, Trump got elected, so I was like, “Nah, I’m moving to Canada”, which is how I ended up in Montreal instead.
Similar with Montreal. A whole grid of streetcar lines just got torn up and replaced with buses. We now have a nice metro now at least, but it certainly wasn’t made from pre-existing tramways.
I think part of the problem is that what we refer to as landlording includes two separate roles: landlording and property management. The former isn’t a legitimate job, gathering its profits from economic rents borne of land and housing scarcity, while the latter is a legitimate job, earning its profits from the labor of managing and maintaining rental housing.
And so with a sufficiently high LVT, approaching the full rental value of land as Henry George proposed, and a much more YIMBY regulatory environment, I think we would likely see landlords converge towards being mere property managers.
That said, you are fully correct that the non-zero costs of moving would still give landlords a little leeway to rent-seek, and I’m curious what solutions may exist to remedy that.
Regardless of whether it 100% solves landlording, I do think LVT and YIMBYism do largely solve real estate “investment” as the meme talks about. Since LVT and abundant housing stop the “line goes up” phenomenon, and LVT in particular punishes real estate speculation, I think they would largely, if not entirely, eliminate the phenomenon of people buying up land/property just to resell later after appreciation. Because, well, housing wouldn’t appreciate under a sufficiently heavy LVT and a strong YIMBY regulatory environment.
Land value tax would fix this
And abolishing exclusionary zoning, parking minimums, and other anti-housing land use policies
Just today I saw this list of the largest tram networks in history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_tram_and_light_rail_transit_systems_ever
The largest existing one is Melbourne, at a little over 250 km of tramways. Los Angeles at its peak had over 1700 km of tramways.
Truly insane what we tore up. A crime against humanity.
My main issues with vacancy taxes are three-fold:
Altogether, vacancy taxes are a pretty marginal solution, and I think our focus is much better spent on land value taxes and YIMBYism (e.g., zoning reform).
What about Henry George, then?
Henry George (September 2, 1839 – October 29, 1897) was an American political economist and journalist. His writing was immensely popular in 19th-century America and sparked several reform movements of the Progressive Era. He inspired the economic philosophy known as Georgism, the belief that people should own the value they produce themselves, but that the economic value of land (including natural resources) should belong equally to all members of society. George famously argued that a single tax on land values would create a more productive and just society.
Personally, I think our philosophy of taxation should be “tax what you take, not what you make”.
Because there’s finite land on Earth and nobody has created it, you occupying any parcel of it necessarily denies others from its benefit. Hence, a land value tax in proportion to the value of land you have taken from the rest of society.
Similar for finite natural resources. There are finite mineral deposits, finite oil deposits, finite phosphate deposits, etc., and anyone who extracts them takes something from the rest of society. Hence, we ought to have a severance tax in proportion to the value of the resource you have taken from the rest of society.
And also similar for negative externalities. When you pollute a river or the atmosphere or cause any other negative externality, you are forcing those around you to bear some of your costs, that is you are taking value from them to give to yourself. Hence, we ought to have externality taxes (aka “Pigouvian taxes”) in proportion to the amount of harm you have caused to society.
Further, I think taxing along this principle leads to the best overall outcomes, not just from an abstract sense of “fairness”, but from pragmatic economic outcomes.
Take land value taxes: economically speaking, LVT is just a great tax with great properties that has seen great empirical success.
Or severance taxes: Norway has used them brilliantly to solve the resource curse.
Or Pigouvian taxes: basically all economists agree carbon tax-and-dividend is the single best climate policy.
But yeah, absolutely everything else should be tax-free. The government shouldn’t even be tracking your income, much less taxing you on it. Tax the land hoarders and polluters instead.
This can probably answer your questions.
A key idea of land value taxes is it’s on land value, rather than land area. Urban land is faaaaar more valuable than urban land on a per-acre basis, so someone who owns 1 acre of land in Manhattan will pay vastly more than a farmer who owns 1 acre in rural Nebraska.
As for appraisal, we already sorta do this with property taxes, as property taxes tax the land value + improvement value. With land value taxes, we simply seek to tax just the unimproved land value. Why? Property taxes can disincentivize development and incentivize land-hoarding and speculation. In contrast, even a milquetoast land value tax has been shown to reduce land speculation.
Good solution is to tax land. The land value tax cannot be passed on to tenants, both in economic theory and in observed practice.
Plus, it’s just a super good tax. Progressive, hard to evade, super efficient, incentivizes density and disincentivizes sprawl. It’s so good that economists of all different ideologies agree, from free-market libertarians like Milton Friedman to New Keynesians and social democrats like Joseph Stiglitz.
We should be taxing land, not labor.
Plus, no human created the Earth, so why should we be able to place arbitrary boundaries upon entire regions of it and restrict others from crossing them based solely on their having been born in a different closed-off region of it?
There is no moral or logical argument in favor of anything but moving towards global freedom of movement one day.
Back when I was in my first year of uni, I applied for a part-time job on indeed. Found out it was a scam when they wanted to pre-pay me with a too-big check and have me transfer the difference to some other account. I noped right out of there.
For those who might be unaware, the scam is they send you a fraudulent check, but it might take a few days to be discovered as such by your bank. But in the meantime, the amount shows up in your account and you transfer the money they tell you to (which is a legitimate transfer). Then, when the bank discovers the check was fraudulent, they remove the amount from your account, but you’re left high and dry because you can’t undo the transfer because the transfer you did was legit.
I moved from California to Montreal a few years back to study, and now I’m staying for good. I tried duolingo on and off for far too long, but I found it super uninteresting and hard to remain committed to.
Best strategy I’ve found is called comprehensible input. The idea is to find books or other reading material that you can get the basic gist of when reading, despite not understanding every single word and phrase and grammatical construction. The more you read, the more you’ll find yourself able to understand, which is also very motivsting!
Also, make sure it’s material that actually interests you. The idea is it’s better to read extensively, reading things that actually interest you to some degree and keep you mentally engaged, than to just really intensively study a much smaller amount of (less interesting) material.
This actually mirrors how we acquire languge. The idea is to intuitively understand French by having seen a lot of it rather than to basically memorize French. You ultimately want to be able to glance at a sign, for instance, and just know what it means without having to translate in your head.
Some resources I found useful were these French illustrated books in Dollarama, but even better is a series of books designed to be comprehensible input by Olly Richards. He’s a native English speaker and polyglot who has written a bunch of graded readers that gradually increase in vocabulary and difficulty. He has several books for French, including beginner short stories, intermediate short stories, beginner conversations, intermediate conversations, climate change, WW2, and philosophy. The nice thing is he actually does a good job of making the stories and content interesting to an adult learner, unlike the children’s books at Dollarama.
Even his beginner books might be a little too advanced for your level so far, though, from what you say. If they are, it’d be best to find some material at a lower level that you can understand a little better. After all, if it’s too hard for you, it will make the process much slower and less enjoyable, which will make it much more likely that you quit. You could even simply try googling “french comprehensible input” to try to find material suitable for your level.
One last resource is the government of Quebec offers free in-person courses for immigrants and many French learners. They are part-time, and they offer multiple options for hours per week, so you could pick what works best for you. It would be worth checking to see if you might qualify for those courses once you move here.
Honestly, Adam Smith gets a worse rap than he deserves because all the rich people abused his ideas to peddle unregulated, free-wheeling capitalism. Even Smith knew the inherent danger of privatization and monopolization of land and rampant rent-seeking.
Kinda like how Nietzsche’s sister exploited and misrepresented his work after his death to further the Nazi cause.
It seems to be a common thing with a lot of the classical economists that they all recognized (and wrote quite a bit about) these problems of monopolism and rent-seeking, but wealthy elites cherry-picked their books to serve their own economic agenda.
drop property taxes on occupied buildings by 17%
As they should. Property taxes are broken and enable land hoarding and speculation.
raise taxes on unoccupied land
Not quite. The point is to raise taxes on the unimproved value of land. For example, two identical lots with the same underlying land value – one vacant and one with an apartment building – would both pay the land tax, but it would be the same amount. They key idea being to heavily incentivize the owner of the vacant lot to do something with it (like build housing) rather than just sit on it as a speculative investment. It should cost speculators money to keep valuable land idle.
Even a quite milquetoast land value tax, such as in the Australian Capital Territory, has been shown to reduce speculation and improve affordability:
It reveals that much of the anticipated future tax obligations appear to have been already capitalised into lower land prices. Additionally, the tax transition may have also deterred speculative buyers from the housing market, adding even further to the recent pattern of low and stable property prices in the Territory. Because of the price effect of the land tax, a typical new home buyer in the Territory will save between $1,000 and $2,200 per year on mortgage repayments.
Detroit is trying to, largely at the behest of their mayor, Mike Duggan. Detroit would especially benefit from the proposed tax, as it has a ton of vacant land, much of it owned by the ultra-wealthy Illitch family:
Ilitch Holdings has been criticised for leaving many properties in Detroit untenanted, allowing them to decay, and for demolishing historic buildings and leaving lots empty, or only using the lots as car parking, rather than developing them.[11][12][13][14][15]
Exactly. We shouldn’t have to rely on our landlord being a decent person. We should live in a housing market where landlords have to take proper care of their properties or else face vacancy. It should be an actual competitive market, where landlords have to compete to attract tenants, rather than tenants compete to attract a landlord. The negotiating power imbalance is completely wack in so many cities.
Yeah, I certainly don’t regret moving to Montreal, as it’s where I met my wife and now where I’m working full-time. But yeah, I got the sense that attending Rose-Hulman would have meant being in a college bubble for 4 years and never doing much outside of that bubble.