pheller said:Boost_Crazy said:In reply to pheller :
Most taxes distort economic decisions and discourage beneficial economic activity.[14]
Yes I agree. Now the question is should we have property taxes at all, maybe the answer is yes, but if we are talking about reforming and changing things lets go back to basics and reevaluate. Is it right that the government gets 30% my income and then at the end of the year i have to send another 20K in because I own property?
frenchyd said:In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
The trouble is, that some of the world gets to live in that fantasy world right now! We are simply looking around the world and seeing which countries have it better than America. Then we examine why and see if America could implement that.
We are tired of being 20th or lower in national metrics. Yes America does done things better than the rest of the world. But not everything!!
Is the fantasy world the half of the US that pays no income tax, and complains that the rich dont pay enough, and here is how we should spend other peoples money?
pheller said:Most taxes distort economic decisions and discourage beneficial economic activity.[14] For example, property taxes discourage construction, maintenance, and repair because taxes increase with improvements. LVT is not based on how land is used. Because the supply of land is essentially fixed, land rents depend on what tenants are prepared to pay, rather than on landlord expenses. Thus landlords cannot pass LVT to tenants, who would move or rent smaller spaces before absorbing increased rent.[15]
The land's occupants benefit from improvements surrounding a site. Such improvements shift tenants' demand curve to the right (they will pay more). Landlords benefit from price competition among tenants; the only direct effect of LVT in this case is to reduce the amount of social benefit that is privately captured as land price by titleholders.
LVT is said to be justified for economic reasons because it does not deter production, distort markets, or otherwise create deadweight loss. Land value tax can even have negative deadweight loss (social benefits), particularly when land use improves.[16] Nobel Prize-winner William Vickrey believed that
"removing almost all business taxes, including property taxes on improvements, excepting only taxes reflecting the marginal social cost of public services rendered to specific activities, and replacing them with taxes on site values, would substantially improve the economic efficiency of the jurisdiction."[17]
LVT's efficiency has been observed in practice.[18] Fred Foldvary stated that LVT discourages speculative land holding because the tax reflects changes in land value (up and down), encouraging landowners to develop or sell vacant/underused plots in high demand. Foldvary claimed that LVT increases investment in dilapidated inner city areas because improvements don't cause tax increases. This in turn reduces the incentive to build on remote sites and so reduces urban sprawl.[19] For example, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania's LVT has operated since 1975. This policy was credited by mayor Stephen R. Reed with reducing the number of vacant downtown structures from around 4,200 in 1982 to fewer than 500.[20]
LVT is arguably an ecotax because it discourages the waste of prime locations, which are a finite resource.[21][22][23] Many urban planners claim that LVT is an effective method to promote transit-oriented development.[24][25]"
Is this wikipedia?
I feel like some of these statements are confusing LVT with a lack of PPT, and to Dukes (repeated) point earlier, some of these outcomes attributed to LVT are not the result of one.
LVT discourages holding of land. It doesn't encourage development in dilapidated inner city areas "because improvements don't cause tax increases". The PPT structure, or lack thereof is the reason behind that. LVT doesn't factor into it.
On the surface, the Harrisburg mayor's policy seems to let vacant landowners subsidize the redevelopment of downtown.
I'm all for encouraging investment/refurbishing of vacant structures. That has a lot more positive outcomes than encouraging the development of land, which seems to have downsides (sprawl). But again, encouraging investment somewhere is not the same as discouraging something else.
To add to the above, it seems if you want to encourage development in dilapidated areas, you would want to discourage vacant land development more.
I know what I have seen happen in some areas is a new shopping center is built across the street from an older run down one with vacancies, which only makes the problem worse.
Opti said:Is the fantasy world the half of the US that pays no income tax, and complains that the rich dont pay enough, and here is how we should spend other peoples money?
How can half the nation not spend income tax? I'm at 8+% for state and my federal range is 12%. I kinda want to know lol
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:Define waste. That's the hard part, isn't it? Before you do anything you have to define what an agency's job is and what results you are looking for.
Then you have to audit. From the top down review supervisiory positions and decide what is needed and what is dead wood. Then go down the ladder from there. This is a lot of work, but not anything hundreds of organizations haven't done before. You could hire consultants to do this, but then you are taking a chance that somebody will think that hiring a consultant is a waste.
You can't just make vague complaints about government waste. Define what is wasted and decide what to do about it. Put together a plan and like any plan, understand that the plan may have to change as time goes on and you collect more information.
I am not necessarily against this. I just want to know what the plan is. What can we get rid of. What procedures can be simplified. It's a big job and we should be doing it constantly.
If you just want to complain. Well yeah. Everybody complains.
I completely agree with the first two paragraphs. It should be SOP that Federal agencies should have clearly defined goals. and regular audits of whether they are hitting these goals and wether they are making the best use of the taxpayers money.
I think the waste in the federal government is so bad, you can make vague complaints about it. Its so systemic that you cant nail it down to one thing. You can probably look at pretty much anything the government does and find innefficiences and waste.
As far as specifics, you can start with the Festivus support. Its from a specific senator so their is obvious bias, but im sure anyone can look through and find something they think is wasteful. Highlights include things like the NSF giving a $118,000 grant to research if a real life Thanos could snap with the infinity gauntlet on.
https://www.paul.senate.gov/sites/default/files/page-attachments/Festivus%202023%20Clean%20AJS%20edits%205p.pdf
An oldy but a goody is when we borrow money from China, to send aide to China.
In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :
This has been pretty standard fare for quite a while. Numbers range from 40-57% is the highest Ive seen. If you dont like CNBC pretty much every other outlet has also reported on it. It was just the first one that popped up on the Goog.
Also I said income tax, I should have said federal income tax.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/25/57percent-of-us-households-paid-no-federal-income-tax-in-2021-study.html
pheller said:Duke said:pheller said:In addition, a split-rate tax [...] reduces the cost of developing it, or of renovating deteriorated buildings.This is purest, deepest bullE36 M3.
It does literally nothing to decrease development costs. All it does is make holding vacant property cost more.
It reduces future tax burden of developing or renovating buildings.
...by increasing the tax burden on the land right now.
C'mon, man. Really?
Opti said:frenchyd said:In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
The trouble is, that some of the world gets to live in that fantasy world right now! We are simply looking around the world and seeing which countries have it better than America. Then we examine why and see if America could implement that.
We are tired of being 20th or lower in national metrics. Yes America does done things better than the rest of the world. But not everything!!Is the fantasy world the half of the US that pays no income tax, and complains that the rich dont pay enough, and here is how we should spend other peoples money?
In a country where half of the country makes less than $30,000 a year, the fantasy is that you could squeeze any more out of them after their rent went up.
In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :
This is a lot of words from someone who still hasn't proven anything
So I guess we have something in common after all.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
Most of the reporting Ive seen is if someone is making under 75K its likely they are not paying federal income taxes.
I agree that people who make 30K should be entitled to most of the fruits of their labors, but I also think that applies pretty much all the way up the income scale. I dont have to change my morals or stance based on someones income, its consistent.
I also find it disingenuous when people say the rich need to pay their fair share, when half of Americans arent paying at all.
In reply to Opti :
frenchyd said:In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
The trouble is, that some of the world gets to live in that fantasy world right now! We are simply looking around the world and seeing which countries have it better than America. Then we examine why and see if America could implement that.
We are tired of being 20th or lower in national metrics. Yes America does done things better than the rest of the world. But not everything!!
Is the fantasy world the half of the US that pays no income tax, and complains that the rich dont pay enough, and here is how we should spend other peoples money?
Frenchyd forgot my post a few pages back showing that the bottom 50% are taxed much higher in the countries he's comparing us to. It's almost like more services cost more money.
Opti said:In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
Most of the reporting Ive seen is if someone is making under 75K its likely they are not paying federal income taxes.
I agree that people who make 30K should be entitled to most of the fruits of their labors, but I also think that applies pretty much all the way up the income scale. I dont have to change my morals or stance based on someones income, its consistent.
I also find it disingenuous when people say the rich need to pay their fair share, when half of Americans arent paying at all.
I'd like to see a source for the first sentence. Because I suspect the income is much lower that ends up paying no federal tax income. Should also depend on if you have kids and if you are talking about individuals that make that or the "household income."
My gross last year was under $100k and I still paid $14k in Federal Income tax. Add the other payroll taxes and it jumps to $26k.
In reply to z31maniac :
here you go
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/26/earn-under-75000-you-may-pay-zero-in-federal-income-taxes-for-2021.html
On average, taxpayers in that category will have no tax liability after accounting for deductions and credits when they file their 2021 tax returns next spring, according to recent estimates from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. Those households also may get money back from the IRS.
Even for taxpayers earning $75,000 to $100,000 in 2021, the average income tax rate paid will be 1.8%.
Again if you dont like CNBC, other people are reporting very similar things, just the first to pop on the Goog.
Opti said:In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
Most of the reporting Ive seen is if someone is making under 75K its likely they are not paying federal income taxes.
I agree that people who make 30K should be entitled to most of the fruits of their labors, but I also think that applies pretty much all the way up the income scale. I dont have to change my morals or stance based on someones income, its consistent.
I also find it disingenuous when people say the rich need to pay their fair share, when half of Americans arent paying at all.
You can actually make a million dollars a year and pay no income tax. Just nosedive your business into the ground and lose two million. It wasn't that hard to do during the Covid years. You could do that and still work your ass off. I don't remember saying in this thread that I thought the rich should pay more. Who is considered rich now anyway? By some standards, I'm rich. Yet I can't afford to buy a $50,000 EV or an $80,000 boat even though I make a bit more than the half the people in country. Who is buying all that stuff? I see it all over town. Our economy can't be all that bad with all the Lamborghinis and Formula Boats running around my neighborhood. Running on credit? Running on empty? I just bought a boat. A cheap boat. That's boat number two. I actually have two red convertibles. In most third world countries where the average dude owns a Honda 90, I would be a gadzillionaire. I also have a Honda 90. I can't complain.
But sometimes I still do.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
I didnt attribute "the rich need to pay their fair share to you"
Its also not as easy for a millionaire to deduct a business loss on his personal taxes as you say. There are excess loss limits, and if they are incorporated, which they probably should be on a business that big, it becomes a little convoluted. There is also a difference between personal taxes and corporate taxes. Im not saying millionaires dont use every advantage allowed to them by the tax code, Im just saying its not as easy as you say.
I agree that most people in America are really well off in the grand scheme of things. I also think that most Americans (and by extension the government) dont have a revenue problem they have a spending problem. I assume you are implying something similar with the "Running on credit?" comment.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
Now days with the way inflation has worked single digit millionaires are just upper middle class anymore. It's really not that hard to have a home worth a million+. And a retirement worth that as well.
It's also decently easy to arrive at that point of your life with almost nothing to show for it. All it takes is a divorce or two a few medical issues, and or some careless spending.
I was one of those guys with the new car and big fancy boat in my early 20's. But in hind sight they were extremely prudent purchases. Inflation helped me pay them off. That meant my credit remained strong and I made prudent purchases all of my life.
Duke said:pheller said:Duke said:pheller said:In addition, a split-rate tax [...] reduces the cost of developing it, or of renovating deteriorated buildings.This is purest, deepest bullE36 M3.
It does literally nothing to decrease development costs. All it does is make holding vacant property cost more.
It reduces future tax burden of developing or renovating buildings.
...by increasing the tax burden on the land right now.
C'mon, man. Really?
Again, LVT would be implimented slowly over time, so by that time it was in full implimentation, if you were a vacant land holder, you would've seen it coming. You would either sell your land or start making money from it.
Many proponents of LVT are in favor of reducing incomes taxes and increasing land taxes.
Henry George himself proposed this as the "Single Tax" - ie, replacing all taxes with LVT. Personally, I like the idea of LVT being implemented in urban areas, and ditching other types of taxes within city limits.
In reply to pheller :
4th time I've asked...
What large quantity of revenue producing property is randomly sitting idle?
That's a stupid idea for anyone who wants to make money.
ProDarwin said:To add to the above, it seems if you want to encourage development in dilapidated areas, you would want to discourage vacant land development more.
I know what I have seen happen in some areas is a new shopping center is built across the street from an older run down one with vacancies, which only makes the problem worse.
This is certainly a consideration when thinking about LVT, because the dilapidated land holder might just make enough income from their property to pay the land tax, and the new developer across the street is motivated to develop vacant land, but might not be inclined to buy the dilapidated property because it's owner still wants a price that does not make redeveloping it financially profitable.
In this situation, do we raise the taxes on the dilapidated property to the point where they are motivated to sell it for whatever they can get for it? Do we offer strong tax breaks for redevelopment of property? I'm not sure, honestly.
pheller said:ProDarwin said:To add to the above, it seems if you want to encourage development in dilapidated areas, you would want to discourage vacant land development more.
I know what I have seen happen in some areas is a new shopping center is built across the street from an older run down one with vacancies, which only makes the problem worse.
This is certainly a consideration when thinking about LVT, because the dilapidated land holder might just make enough income from their property to pay the land tax, and the new developer across the street is motivated to develop vacant land, but might not be inclined to buy the dilapidated property because it's owner still wants a price that does not make redeveloping it financially profitable.
In this situation, do we raise the taxes on the dilapidated property to the point where they are motivated to sell it for whatever they can get for it? Do we offer strong tax breaks for redevelopment of property? I'm not sure, honestly.
So now the idea is LITERALLY to tax them out of existence??
And who the berkeley is "We"???
SV reX said:In reply to pheller :
4th time I've asked...
What large quantity of revenue producing property is randomly sitting idle?
That's a stupid idea for anyone who wants to make money.
I think I asked it earlier in the thread, but I'm not sure if it was answered or not:
Some investors can write off depreciation of assets in areas with high appreciation and still make money.
Basically, the taxes are low enough and the appreciation is high enough that they will make money on the sale of the property, while also being able to claim depreciation.
I was talking with a local guy who is a property investor, and here was his answer when I asked this question:
"I’ve ran into tons of reasons, “passing down to kids” when they die, not willing to pay taxes on the sale, corporate tax haven for other businesses, back taxes too high to bother, used as collateral on another deal and left vacant cuz they can, city screwed them, wife has this idea and husband has that, didn’t know they owned it after parents died, and I’ve had countless here in town just simply tell me “I’m not selling anything” even though the building is clearly vacant and falling apart"
I understand and perhaps that has some merit. My problem is the complexity of the tax code makes everyone sensitive to changes.
With 77,000+ pages in the federal tax code, plus state and local rules and policies. The code is overly complex.
Trying to change behavior by use of the tax code is one more stick on an overloaded system. I'm not sure you're aware that recently congress passed a law to defund the IRS.
Perhaps now is a time to eliminate the whole system and change tax collection to a VOLUNTARY system. Use sales tax as the collection tool. Make everything tax able. And it can be as little as 2%. The more deductions the higher the rate. Buy a lollipop pay the tax. Buy GM pay the tax. You want anything you pay a tax.
In reply to SV reX :
My interest is maximizing urban land use. I hate sprawl.
I'm open to other ways of combating it. Suggestions?
pheller said:Again, LVT would be implimented slowly over time, so by that time it was in full implimentation, if you were a vacant land holder, you would've seen it coming.
Who gives a flying berk how slowly it's implemented?
If it's implemented at all, it will not and cannot reduce the cost of development.
It will not and cannot result in cheaper housing.
You just keep refusing to understand that.
It doesn't make development easier or cheaper. In any way at all.
All it does is make not-development more expensive.
All it does is burn up open space and resources with ill-advised and economically risky development projects that probably don't make economic sense (or they would have been developed already).
Here's an analogy for you:
Say a person has bad knees and doesn't want to stand up more than they have to.
You're not proposing helping get this person replacement knees.
You're proposing electrifying their chair so it is less painful to stand up than it is to sit down.
You'll need to log in to post.
