This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
My understanding is that this is effectively an opportunity cost tax. I.e., if you are sitting on a valuable plat which could generate 10 M$ in rents with 1 M$ of improvements, the market value of the plat should be about 9M$, and you would be taxed on that value, even if you were only generating 100K$ of rents (including imputed rents).
This is economically very efficient, as it encourages land to be used for its most economically efficient purpose. However, this butts directly up against peoples' real-world desires to "settle" - to establish a home in a place and be able to stay there indefinitely. If, for reasons beyond their control, the price of their property increases, they can be financially forced from their homes, which is about as soulcrushing as being foreclosed upon, while also seeming much more unfair. It destroys a person's ability to make stable long-term plans regarding a very fundamental fact of life. It also destroys residential community, by creating a disincentive to make a community that people want to live in, which has the natural effect of increasing property value. These are already problems with existing property taxes, that would be greatly amplified by taxing away all of the land value (leaving only rents).
After all, most people recoil about applying the same logic in other contexts: should a person's income tax be based on the amount of money they theoretically could be earning, if they worked as much as possible in the most valuable field they are qualified for, in the location with the highest salary? Hard-core utilitarians have seriously proposed this, but the concept of being treated as an economic ends with no function other than to produce social benefit, rather than a sapient being with noneconomic needs and desires makes most people reject this with prejudice.
The solution I've seen mentioned is that you can permit the homeowner to 'name their price' i.e. the value of what they think their home/land is truly worth, with the caveat being that if someone offers to purchase at said price they are legally compelled to accept it.
If they name an astronomically high price, then they are going to be taxed accordingly.
So the incentive would be that they name a price that is sufficiently high to make up for the the distress of leaving a cherished home, of finding and moving to a new one, and whatever other burdens would be placed on them if they were to move, but not so high that they couldn't afford the tax burden.
I've not thought of nor seen a solid rebuttal to this proposal. If a homeowner has a price they are genuinely willing to accept for a property they have an extreme emotional attachment to, then 'forcing' them to sell at that price is barely a harm. If they claim that the property is actually worth far more than any buyer would reasonably be willing to pay, then they are prevented from complaining if their inflated valuation is the one they pay tax on.
Because if we take the complete inverse of your scenario, we end up with nail houses where a person refuses all reasonable offers to sell, and ends up having all the positive features of their neighborhood stripped away and end up distressed anyway, but with no money to show for it.
This is even worse. Under either the present system or full gay space
communismgeorgism, at least I do not wake up one morning and get told I have to move out within the next month.You are robbing the entire owner surplus here. I am sure the grocery store would like to figure out exactly how much I am willing to pay for a loaf of milk or a jar of bread, or the car salesman to figure out exactly what a car is worth to me.
There is being more economically efficient, and then there is negotiating with the swarm of AI drones outside my house exactly how much my child's life is worth to me compared to their value of him in paperclips.
I have a bunch of things in my house that I would like to sell for their market price but the transaction costs are too high to bother. That is essentially negative surplus for me. But I also own things that I value much more than their market value in cash, which is positive surplus, so it balances out. So the idea of a future where I lose the positive surplus but lose the negative surplus is extremely distressing.
If you set your asking price correctly, then this should be priced in.
Again, if they set their price accurately and account for all the value they can reasonably extract from the land, they should be capturing close to all of the 'surplus' available to them, OR there's simply nobody out there that would match their asking price.
I guess I have a hard time accepting that someone would be so attached to a piece of land that they cannot express a price point at which they would gleefully part with it.
As opposed to parting with a human who is, from an emotional standpoint, of nigh-infinite value and not replaceable.
If you set your price high enough, you could use the sale proceeds to pay to have the entire property reconstructed in exacting detail at a different location, such that you would barely notice the difference.
Can you name one such thing that can't be replaced by a good-enough reproduction if it were ever lost or broken? Do you have some unique pieces of art or some item that has sentimental value only to you?
Otherwise, why do you value such items more than a near-identical one you could just buy on the market?
If you know even a smidgen about the financial acumen and long-term planning capabilities of the median American, you should realize that just about no-one will set their asking price """correctly""".
This makes the argument for getting value-producing assets out of their hands stronger.
Why are we letting financial illiterates sit on land that could be producing much greater value? This is no way to run an economy!
But more seriously, fine. Require that they consult with a professional before declaring a price. An agent of sorts. Ah, there we go. Lets set up a profession of "Real Estate Agents", who are familiar with local market conditions, that people can hire so they can set a good asking price for their house and not get taken advantage of by buyers. Maybe require licensing.
Crazy idea, I know.
People are not cogs in an economy. An "economy" is literally the art and science of managing households. To destroy the concept of a household in the service of household management would be a horrifying historical irony, and so fundamentally inhuman I'm having trouble staying civil over it.
How is it unfair to have someone name the value they believe their house is worth for taxation purposes, but fair to have the government declare a value and tax on that value by fiat?
That's been my point the entire time. The most fair way to do a land value tax is to have the person who owns the land declare the value, whilst holding them to said valuation if a sale offer is made.
Financial illiteracy is not a viable objection to this because it is a solved problem.
You did not propose having someone name their value for taxation purposes; you proposed having people name the price at which they would be obligated to accept and sell.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link