jlhawn

For anyone who think "oh this is just California's Proposition 13 but with a time limit"... not exactly. The tax rate in California is 1% of assessed value where assessed value can't grow more than 2% or the rate of inflation (whichever is lower). In this alternative system the base tax rate would be significantly higher. Ideally, high enough to capture the majority of the land's rental value at first. It also sets inflation as a floor while prop 13 has it or 2% as a ceiling.

I have thought about this for years. If your land value increases dramatically over a short period of time, _theoretically_ you should be able to use this as an opportunity to take advantage of that increase by constructing more housing or office/retail space.

In reality, individuals and businesses like to make long term plans. This expectation makes it incredibly unreasonable for a recently constructed home, office, or retail space which has an expected useful lifetime of decades. They shouldn't be expected to replace it all only after a few years.

This is why I think a reasonable compromise is to have a type of limited "rent control" for land value tax where it is only allowed to increase by no more than 1 percent more than the rate of inflation. This limit comes into affect when a building is constructed and lasts for the duration of the expected lifetime of the building, perhaps 55 to 65 years. That's at least 2 full depreciation cycles (if you're familiar with that). It resets to market value if the property is sold but the limit is not extended any further into the future.

We're all Quaternionerds now.

I don't think this is true. Demand and Agglomeration effects will always increase land/location value. The question is whether or not there is an increase in land value per capita. When you limit density then only those most willing and able to bid up the price of locations will increase the land value per capita. If you allow density the land value per capita will decrease (more affordable) while the total land value still increases.

Edit: Any perceived amenity affect from limiting population density is really just a scarcity effect.

It's a mine. The hill is the cargo.

In the "Use as a `do` expression" section, the example which uses `run` does not need the `else` cases and could be simplified:

  function doWork() {
    const x = run(() => {
      if (foo()) return f();
      if (bar()) return g();
      return h();
    });
  
    return x * 10;
  }

This is a drawing app using P5.js

Click the "</>" at the top to read the code.

There's a popular "Let's Code" YouTube channel called The Coding Train that uses it. It's quite acccessible.

What does it seem to think that "humanity's greatest problem" is exactly? What if you explicitly tell it that overpopulation is not a problem?

Georgism?

> In their updated policy, it appears they now won't remove any existing images, but projects who don't pay up will not be able to publish any new images

This is not correct. It's the "organization" features which are going away. That is the feature which lets you create teams, add other users to those teams, and grant teams access to push images and access private repositories. Multiple maintainers can still collaborate on publishing new images through use of access tokens which grant access to publish those images. It's kind of a hack, but it works. You would typically use these access tokens with automated CI tools anyway. This will require converting the organization account to a personal user (non-org) account. (Interesting note/disclosure: I was the engineer who first implemented the feature of converting a personal user account into an organization account some time around 2014/2015, but I no longer work there.)

For open source projects which are not part of the Docker Official Images (the "library" images [1]), they announced that such projects can apply to the Docker-Sponsored Open Source Program [2].

I would also heed the warning from the author of this article:

> Self-hosting a registry is not free, and it's more work than it sounds: it's a proper piece of infrastructure, and comes with all the obligations that implies, from monitoring to promptly applying security updates to load & disk-space management. Nobody (let alone tiny projects like these) wants this job.

Having most container images hosted by a handful of centralized registries has its problems, as noted, but so does an alternative scenario where multiple projects which decided to go self-hosted eventually lack the resources to continue doing so for their legacy users. Though, I suppose the nice thing about container images is that you can always pull and push them somewhere else to keep around indefinitely.

[1] https://hub.docker.com/u/library [2] https://www.docker.com/community/open-source/application/

The latest episode of the Odd Lots Podcast (Feb. 27, 2023) titled "Why We Don't Build More Apartments for Families"

> On this episode of the Odd Lots podcast, we explore the hidden incentives and regulations that deter builders from making more family-friendly buildings.

> I'm surprised you're able to build Docker images faster than Docker using their code/libraries?

It's not a code/library problem. Knowing what Buildkit options to use is the easy part. It's almost entirely a storage infrastructure and networking problem as it has huge implications on whether or not you'll be able to easily cache build layers.

You should check out Culdesac[1].

[1] https://culdesac.com/

Yep, $1 Million+ homes in the largest job markets in the U.S. are hard to beat!

But it understands your work habits! Also, it uses machine learning to understand your work habits! This makes you more productive by understanding your work habits.

My comment was more about California, specifically, as that's what the original post was about. The state constitution uses the term "full cash value". I dislike the term "Assessed value" because so many people assume it's the same as "appraised value" which is a term that buyers, sellers, lenders, and real estate agents are usually more familiar with. I very much agree with the OP in that I think we should be explicit about the subsidies and/or exemptions that we give instead of hiding them in the way that taxes are assessed.

This is why, I think, property taxes should not be based on the "full cash value" of a property but instead be based on the rental value. The market selling price that we used today is a lot more volatile than rental value because it is based not only on the rental value but also factors in the current interest rate, a speculative premium on future returns, and holding costs such as the property tax itself. Think about how rents have changed over the past few years versus home sale prices, particularly with interest rates being a roller coaster these past few years. If county assessors instead kept track of the rental price of comparable properties, the assessment would be a lot less volatile. This policy would also lead to homeowners having their interests more aligned with renters: keep property taxes stable by keeping rents stable.

"House-Price" is a terrible metric that only house sellers really care about. Everyone else is more concerned with monthly total housing costs. If house prices stayed the same and interest rates increased 2-3x that means monthly payments for new mortgages also increase. Buyers are unable or unwilling to pay the higher monthly cost so they bid less and the price comes down but their total monthly payment does not decrease.

In some sense this is a transfer of wealth from home owners/sellers to banks/lenders and hopeful and prospective first time buyers see no benefit, aside from maybe smaller down payments.

> As a result, other people want to move in

> Their own charity and neighborliness spelled their doom

is allowing more homes not possible? If not, then where’s that “neighborliness” now?

In many California cities at least, you can connect all of the rent control measures in the late '70s to significant downzonings which occurred in the previous decade or so. I wonder if it could also be be considered a factor which contributed to the passage of proposition 13 in 1978.

https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/programs/housing/housing-supply/z...

edit: So I actually consider rent control to be a result of low housing production rather than the other way around. Associate Professor Shane Phillips from the Lewis Center (linked above) also considers rent control to be a very reasonable policy as long as there's plenty of realistic zoned capacity for more housing. Everyone is always arguing that if we build more then that would keep rents from rising so why not have rent control anyway then?

St. Paul's rent control does go pretty far. Personally, I think it's a mistake to have it apply to new construction. If you remember California Prop 21 from 2020, even that would have only allowed rent control on buildings which are at least 15 years old.

YIMBY organizers still get a lot of criticism from its early days where they would show up to support housing wherever it was being built, and in the mid-2010s that typically meant low-income, minority neighborhoods that were already experiencing a lot of displacement pressure. This gave them a bad reputation among equity organizations which supported alternatives like rent control and moratoriums on new construction. Some YIMBYs still think that policies like rent control are like a metaphorical wrench in the housing market machine which reduce the incentive to supply more housing but even more still realize that the machine is already full of wrenches like apartment bans, onerous parking requirements, and single-family-only zoning, excessively long discretionary review processes, etc [1].

The latest in the movement for new public housing in California is actually supported by YIMBY organizations [2]. AB 2053, The Social Housing Act is making its way through the state legislature right now. While just about every YIMBY organization supports it, it's opposed by NIMBY orgs like Livable California, the League of California Cities, and even the California Association of Realtors. Meanwhile, the orgs which have long talked about supporting social housing are taking either no position or support-if-amended stances on the bill because they don't like that the way it generates subsidy for below market housing is by building market-rate housing to cross-subsidize it. They strongly believe that any new market-rate housing causes displacement but don't want to be on the wrong side of history when this bill succeeds.

[1] https://www.tiktok.com/@planetmoney/video/709917153557088183... [2] https://www.californiasocialhousing.org/

Land Value Tax would solve this.

There isn't a shortage of 3500 sq.ft. single family homes in suburban or rural areas in the way that there is a shortage of apartments/condos in high-rent urban areas. There isn't much opposition to this kind of new development. The major limiting factor for demand for this type of development is commute times (to everything, not just jobs). This is not the first choice of many people who would prefer to live closer to an urban center if not for higher prices caused by low supply of housing in such high-demand locations.

I'm seeing a lot of "I could do this myself" in this thread.

Okay. Then do it.

Make your own password manager. Make your own browser and iOS/Android keyboard extensions for it. Make your own cloud backup/sync of your encrypted passwords.

Do it.

I hope you're not suggestion that we go back to a gold standard? I wouldn't mind certain capital controls though, specifically limits on credit money issued for purchase of land.

Sorry, I went to sleep before seeing your reply.

There could be a lot of reasons 'why' but the biggest reason for me is that land/location value usually has nothing to do with the actions of the individual owners. There exists cheap/marginal land that can be had for almost nothing because it either has nothing or is near nothing while there also exists land which is rich in minerals, fertile virgin* cropland or forest, or other natural resources or is is valuable urban land which happens to be located near well paying jobs, good schools, good food, entertainment, accessible open space, or has really good weather or views. As the physical space of varying quality along all these different dimensions is in fixed in supply its price is determined by demand. Oxygen in the air is another "essential requirement to live" but fortunately it cannot be enclosed as easily as land can. Water is already somewhere in between. Land is differentiated from housing, food, and other essentials because there is no work required to produce and distribute it. It just exists and those who happen to own valuable locations are unjustly able to take the economic rent which is the common right of everyone. For a lot of things, you're right, it's often best to leave the production and allocation up to market forces and we end up with an abundance of food and other goods. But there is no real market for land and other natural opportunities because it's not something that can even be produced in the first place.**

Questions to consider:

- When someone claims a house costs more because the weather is mild and temperate (like coastal California), who should be paid for the good weather? Why pay the previous owner?

- When someone claims a house costs more because the local schools are really good, why not pay the municipality more for the schools? Aren't you paying twice by first paying local taxes that fund the schools and then paying the previous owner?

- When someone claims a house costs more because it is on a hillside with a panoramic view of mountains, bridges, bodies of water, and city skylines, who should you pay for the natural topography and shining lights? Why pay the previous owner?

- When someone claims a house costs more because it is near a lot of high paying jobs or is close to shopping, doesn't it seem like a significant amount of profits and wages of the businesses and employees (particularly the least profitable businesses and least paid employees) are being siphoned off to land owners?

- When someone claims a house costs more because it is close to a quality transit station/stop (and other public services) doesn't it seem like you are paying twice to access those services? Once as a fare or usage fee and again as rent or payment to the previous owner?

* land that has never been farmed before or forest that hasn't been logged before as sustainable soil management and forestry do in fact carry a long-term cost for production. Still, there is location value as it relates to climate conditions, access to water, and access to markets for labor, processing, and distribution.

** even landfill (common in parts of the sf bay area, manhattan, and boston) are only done because the /location/ is so valuable that it is worth the cost of filling in with soil moved in from elsewhere. It's less common today not only because of higher costs of dredging and filling but because we also tend to be more aware of the cost of environmental externalities.

The real horrendous injustice is that when you purchase real estate your payment includes a large unearned increment to the previous owner over what they paid for it. A system where you pay the previous owner only for the value of improvements and make regular ground lease payments to the local municipality (instead of general property taxes) would be more ideal.

The Georgist movement (or Single-Tax movement) had a lot of momentum at the beginning of the 20th century. Major political leaders like Winston Churchill, Rutherford B. Hayes, and Sun Yat-Sen were all Georgists. There are various reasons for why the movement lost traction but I think it can mostly be attributed to:

(1) the automobile which increased the accessibility and productivity of formerly-marginal land, lessening the problem of equitable access to land, and

(2) the introduction of the income tax as an alternative to land value taxes. Notable, land monopolists preferred income taxes because as long as their land is unused or underused they are not producing as much income. The Georgist movement then split between those who thought that income tax was a good enough replacement and those who "knew" it wasn't.

There's also a kind of conspiracy theory which claims that (to a certain extent) neo-classical economics (which developed at about the same time that Georgism become popular) was promoted by wealthy and biased land owners and monopolists at the time with an intent to discredit Henry George and obfuscate the role of land in the economy, folding it under the definition of 'capital' to reduce the factors of production to just two, along with labor.

Even if land on Earth were infinite, there would still be differences in value based on location. Already there is desert land which can be used for free but urban land is far more valuable due to its proximity to desirable features.

Economic rent like this pops up even in human-made domains of potentially infinite expanse, such as the internet. There is no limit to the number of domain names which may exist yet some are far more valuable than those which can be claimed for low-to-no cost. Even social media platforms are valued to include the economic rent of their own user communities. For example, even if there came along a social media platform which was better than Facebook in every way, users would still value Facebook more because it has more community and community-generated activity and content.