Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Don't threaten me with a good time :)

Cheekiness aside, you'll find the overlap of people who support both a land value tax and a wealth tax to almost be a circle.



I do not support Wealth taxes. I would heartily support a land value tax.

Though popularised by George it was first rigourously analysed by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations.

We are, ultimately, all tenants of our sovereign. Our sovereign protects us from enemies both foreign and domestic. They do not protect our incomes, or our assets but by and large most societies do agree that it is a matter of fact that can be arbitrated in a dispute as to who owns which piece of land.


I don't think that's true. There's a reason many LVT'ers are called (and consider themselves) "single-taxers."


This isn't true. Land Value Tax is more regressive than wealth tax. There is a large contingent of Georgists who call themselves geolibertarians who basically support land value tax as the only tax that has a moral basis. They are fine with the inequality that comes from such a class (Middle class people often have 400% of their net worth in land/real estate at certain points in their lives, but high wealth people have portfolio's that are roughly 13% real estate). If you're taxing one person on 400% of their net worth and one person on 13% of their net worth that functions very differently to a wealth tax.


But property tax already exists, so apparently that regressive nature is fine. And middle class people mostly own land that’s been improved. It’s unimproved land that would be taxed much more with a land value tax. I don’t think it’s obvious which land owners would pay more or less - it depends on the structure of the tax and the relative value of their land vs the improvements on it.


The overlap vd of people with no wealth and those that want to be taxed on it would be more of a circle.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: