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

> almost everywhere it has a double function in also being an appreciating retirement fund.

That's true, but it's also a looming economic disaster as it prices out the younger generation and entrenches generational wealth.

Chicago are famous for their highest rate of 2.5% per annum, grown smoothly over 15+ years. Thought experiment: What happens if the land value tax rate keeps growing smoothly? What does it look like at 10% per annum? 20%? 100%?

At 100% per annum, the average land value of a house needs to be below $50k or so in current dollars (most would need to be much less). Any higher, and ~nobody is willing to pay the taxes.

A large home costs $200k or so to build vs a small/cheap home at 80k, so property prices now range from 50k (old cheap home) to 250k (new, high-end home).

That's a huge result for housing affordability! People are currently saving deposits of 80k to get a mortgage.

Instead of paying mortgage costs to capital holders, you're paying tax to a government that ostensibly exists to serve you. Instead of buying "the most I can afford so I get a retirement fund", now people are buying housing based on their willingness to pay an ongoing cost for access to amenities.



Sounds almost like "have the government own all the housing stock and rent it to the people"


That’s an extreme case, yeah.

I think at that point you’re disincentivising capital works too strongly, since there’s a higher risk you’ll lose the property via default on taxes, but it’s not clear to me that the same effect would exist even at a 20% rate.




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

Search: