6 ms·

We don't need a VAT. Taxes on consumption are insanely regressive. Put a tax on the value of land instead of the property improvements. Then you'll start to se

We don't need a VAT. Taxes on consumption are insanely regressive. Put a tax on the value of land instead of the property improvements. Then you'll start to see some wealth flow away from the UHNWIs.

NotGMan 3mo ago
Taxing primary residence or the land its on will destroy middle and lower class and allow rich ones to go even further hand. Luxury tax and tax on secondary homes would probably be better.
- larsiusprime 3mo ago
  Have you done the math? Under a revenue-neutral shift that taxes buildings less and land more, the median homeowner comes out ahead: https://landeconomics.org/reports/spokane-report https://landeconomics.org/reports/spokane-report I think what you're missing is that land in the wealthiest parts of town is worth exponentially more than land out in the suburbs
- iamnothere 3mo ago
  LVT taxes only the land. Some recent studies have shown that a properly implemented LVT avoids harming most homeowners, in fact you may come out ahead if other taxes are eliminated. (LVT alone is adequate to fund government spending and entitlements.) The homeowners who will typically feel a pinch are those who have inherited very large estates which don’t generate income. They may need to sell or develop part of their estate. Land speculators, however, will be in serious trouble.
sham1 3mo ago
Georgism? In the big 2026? Now that's a blast from the past! Now, land value taxes obviously have their place in the gamut of different taxes to levy, so I don't wish to badmouth them too much. But as a consumption tax, VAT also does have its place. Sure, they are absolutely regressive, but this also helps them to act more like Pigovian taxes, since they can be used to make certain categories of goods and services more expensive. And so if one can afford to pay the value of the negative externalities, why not. And hopefully it can then steer people towards better choices.
- jason_oster 3mo ago
  > And hopefully it can then steer people towards better choices. As a counterexample, tobacco taxation is less effective for reducing smoking than alternative policies [1]. So, yes, we can hope that higher taxes help people make better choices. Or we can implement better policies that are known to be more effective. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20250323131704/https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/tobacco-taxes-are-not-most-effective-tobacco-control-policy-actually-implemented https://web.archive.org/web/20250323131704/https://tobacco.u...

We don't need a VAT. Taxes on consumption are insanely regressive. Put a tax on the value of land instead of the property improvements. Then you'll start to see some wealth flow away from the UHNWIs.

NotGMan 3mo ago

Taxing primary residence or the land its on will destroy middle and lower class and allow rich ones to go even further hand. Luxury tax and tax on secondary homes would probably be better.

larsiusprime 3mo ago
Have you done the math? Under a revenue-neutral shift that taxes buildings less and land more, the median homeowner comes out ahead: https://landeconomics.org/reports/spokane-report https://landeconomics.org/reports/spokane-report I think what you're missing is that land in the wealthiest parts of town is worth exponentially more than land out in the suburbs
iamnothere 3mo ago
LVT taxes only the land. Some recent studies have shown that a properly implemented LVT avoids harming most homeowners, in fact you may come out ahead if other taxes are eliminated. (LVT alone is adequate to fund government spending and entitlements.) The homeowners who will typically feel a pinch are those who have inherited very large estates which don’t generate income. They may need to sell or develop part of their estate. Land speculators, however, will be in serious trouble.

sham1 3mo ago

Georgism? In the big 2026? Now that's a blast from the past! Now, land value taxes obviously have their place in the gamut of different taxes to levy, so I don't wish to badmouth them too much. But as a consumption tax, VAT also does have its place. Sure, they are absolutely regressive, but this also helps them to act more like Pigovian taxes, since they can be used to make certain categories of goods and services more expensive. And so if one can afford to pay the value of the negative externalities, why not. And hopefully it can then steer people towards better choices.

jason_oster 3mo ago
> And hopefully it can then steer people towards better choices. As a counterexample, tobacco taxation is less effective for reducing smoking than alternative policies [1]. So, yes, we can hope that higher taxes help people make better choices. Or we can implement better policies that are known to be more effective. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20250323131704/https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/tobacco-taxes-are-not-most-effective-tobacco-control-policy-actually-implemented https://web.archive.org/web/20250323131704/https://tobacco.u...