2 ms·
> Do you apply a flat rate per acre of land regardless of where it is, to the detriment of rural farmers who own many acres? No, it's the market value of the l
by akvadrako 9y ago
> Do you apply a flat rate per acre of land regardless of where it is, to the detriment of rural farmers who own many acres?
No, it's the market value of the land. Probably the price would be determined in a manner similar to property tax.
It seems that in our current world, it's easier to fairly determine property tax then what counts as someone's income, at least for the self-employed and investment classes.
- kijin 9y agoMarket value is easy. The problem is that the author wants his tax to be based on the "unimproved value" of land, rather than the market value that includes buildings and other stuff that's on and around the land. He's aiming for a kind of philosophical purity in order to be able to say that he's not going to put a tax on human effort. That's where the complexity comes in.
- akvadrako 9y agoI don't think it's about purity at all, but practicality. Land is the scarce resource, not the buildings on it. Taxing scarce resources is what we must do and also creates the right incentives. You claim it'll be hard to judge it's fair market value and this is what I disagree with. I mean, sure it'll be hard, but not harder than measuring income. If the land tax equals the land value, undeveloped plots should sell for about $0. That's a natural benchmark to aim for.