7/ Sadly, the debate alone on the fact that the expected rate of appreciation for real estate is theoretically and empirically negative would be excruciating. And that's just a sliver of it.

6/ The trade-off is that the upfront tax can make homes much more expensive to buy, especially when long-term interest rates are low, but that’s also when mortgages are cheapest, and the premium is preserved in the resale value.

5/ The local government is therefore consistently long local real estate.

As a result, the government synthetically gets something akin to property-tax revenue, while people own their real estate free and clear in perpetuity.

4/ But what if the government spends it all at once? What if it needs revenue roughly proportional to property prices to accommodate different futures? Once collected, that 20% is mandated to be invested in a local REIT-like trust fund that distributes rental income.

3/ At a 1% property tax and 5% long-term interest rates, that comes to 20% of the selling price of the new construction.

2/ Frustratingly, the solution is economically simple—if likely politically infeasible: levy a one-time tax on each new construction equal to the expected net present value of the property taxes it would generate in perpetuity.

ossia

2/ They think this idea is so radical and counterintuitive that when they hear the distinct concern of an omnicidal AI killing everything on the spot, they can only interpret it in that frame. That's the read I get from Sutton for instance, but also a bunch of e/acc affiliated people.

Yes!