> if he and his neighbor decided to rent their house to each other (with zero net change in income after rent), then he would pay the tax as a landlord
If I sold something to you only to immediately buy it back, we'd both pay a tax on the transaction. But this kind of transaction makes no sense anyway, why would anyone want to do it?
The Vox article gives an example of a cross-city house rent, but that's essentially tax evasion scenario. Is it worth trying to fight it by just making everyone obligated to pay the tax?
> If you own a home in the United States, it really pays to live in it rather than to use it as an income-generating asset that helps you afford to rent to live somewhere else.
This may be the core philosophical difference, and I may be wrong about this, but: isn't this situation good? Shouldn't people be encouraged to own a home and actually live in it?
> In my capacity as landlord, I allow myself to live rent-free in my own home rather than explicitly charging myself rent that would be taxed as income.
I've heard this line of thinking before, and it always sounded to me like ridiculous mental gymnastics. Should I pay tax on my phone, or dishwasher, or clothes, or every other thing I own, just because I'm theoretically renting it to myself for free?
> So if we were to design a tax on hoarding scarce land, logically we would want to avoid the mistake that the US Treasury made in 1914, and include vacant landowners, rentiers, and homeowners in the same bucket. A normal property tax according to value gets this right by treating them all the same.
Again, this probably just betrays how little I know on the topic, but: couldn't we just tax land and housing separately?