4 ms·

It is. In my city at least. And at the federal level for landlords as well. My local taxes depend on my land value + my house value. Larger land, (or more des

It is. In my city at least. And at the federal level for landlords as well. My local taxes depend on my land value + my house value. Larger land, (or more desirable) more taxes. In federal taxes, for a rental unit, you get a depreciation expense only on the value of the structure. Not on the land. So more valuable land vs. structure, less federal discount.

mabbo 7y ago
> My local taxes depend on my land value + my house value Are they separate line items? Or combined? The difference matters. My condo is taxed based on the whole value of the unit- which is something like 1/2 of the cost of a house in the same neighbourhood, which means I'm taxed about 1/2 of what they are. But I use 1/100th the amount of land they use. Meanwhile, the cost to the city in terms of infrastructure (pipes, roads, drainage, etc) is much lower than the houses in the subdivision down the road. In effect, today's laws makes high-density-home owners subsidize the high cost of maintaining subdivisions by taxing on total value only. Switch it to 50% value and 50% land use, with explicit line items for each and you'll see more demand for high density housing.
- analog31 7y ago
  In my locale, assessments are required to be based on market value. The market doesn't assign a separate value to the house and the land.
  - sbzodnsbd 7y ago
    No but the assessor can - and in every place I’ve owned property, does - give you a breakdown. Heck, the breakdown is required information in your federal taxes if you want the depreciation expense. And for all of us who don’t live in crazy-land CA, we have to get assessed since my purchase price (I.e. market value) ten years ago is meaningless today.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  Without getting into the numbers, this is the right approach: Some people argue Property taxes vs Land Value taxes thinking it is roughly the same, and that althought it might change tax structure it wouldnt change rent prices. But thats true if you look at it statically: dynamically, you make poeple in single family homes want to abandon them and sell them to developers, so you naturally turn an enemy (nimby) into an ally (sell for developers).
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Meanwhile, the cost to the city in terms of infrastructure (pipes, roads, drainage, etc) is much lower than the houses in the subdivision down the road The costs in terms of lots of services that aren't physical infrastructure scales with population, though, and for some services (or for adverse impacts that services don't fully mitigate) is also higher, rather than lower, for the same population when density is higher; e.g., crime rates per capita tend to go up with population density.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    The base of the land value tax is the value of the land though. If the land is in the middle of a high population density area then the land is worth more and it generates more tax revenue. The difference between this and property tax is that if you have a 12 story building on one piece of land and a 2 story building on the adjacent one, otherwise identical piece of land, they both pay the same tax, giving the second property owner more incentive to build.
    - taysic 7y ago
      And then what when everything has become skyscrapers? I think it’s perfectly ok that not everyplace wants this end result.
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        You only do this in the places where you want everything to become skyscrapers. There is no real need for it in Des Monies or other places that already have reasonable housing costs.
      - imtringued 7y ago
        This is how the problem started in the first place.
- malyk 7y ago
  I’ve owned property in Virginia and California and both the counties I lived in break out the assessed value of you land and your property as separate line items on your bill. They do NOT break your payment into multiple lines. For example, my current home is assessed as $150k land value and $350k house value for a total of $500k.
- sbzodnsbd 7y ago
  “The difference matters” I don’t see how, but I don’t fully understand how your assessment works. My city’s assessment is close to the market value [1] for the whole property, so it’s a mute point. Either way, they do give me a breakdown, which I agree is right (land about 33% of overall value). Again, for rental properties, there is a disincentive to having low density housing (my condo value in a 20 story building is assessed as 20% land) [1] close to what I believe I can sell the house for
eveningcoffee 7y ago
It sounds nice until people are forced out of their homes because suddenly the area becomes hip.
- mabbo 7y ago
  That's going to happen to areas no matter what. There is very little you can do about that. What we can do is increase housing supply so that prices of all homes are lower.
  - throwaway34241 7y ago
    For primary residences you could also do things like defer payment on the increases until sale, so no one is forced out of their home but the people who have huge capital gains do not also get a tax break. Rental property shouldn't need a special break though, if there's a housing shortage and prices are up it's very likely that rents are up too.
- sbzodnsbd 7y ago
  I wasn’t making a value judgement; just stating that my land vale does affect my taxes

mabbo 7y ago

> My local taxes depend on my land value + my house value Are they separate line items? Or combined? The difference matters. My condo is taxed based on the whole value of the unit- which is something like 1/2 of the cost of a house in the same neighbourhood, which means I'm taxed about 1/2 of what they are. But I use 1/100th the amount of land they use. Meanwhile, the cost to the city in terms of infrastructure (pipes, roads, drainage, etc) is much lower than the houses in the subdivision down the road. In effect, today's laws makes high-density-home owners subsidize the high cost of maintaining subdivisions by taxing on total value only. Switch it to 50% value and 50% land use, with explicit line items for each and you'll see more demand for high density housing.

analog31 7y ago
In my locale, assessments are required to be based on market value. The market doesn't assign a separate value to the house and the land.
- sbzodnsbd 7y ago
  No but the assessor can - and in every place I’ve owned property, does - give you a breakdown. Heck, the breakdown is required information in your federal taxes if you want the depreciation expense. And for all of us who don’t live in crazy-land CA, we have to get assessed since my purchase price (I.e. market value) ten years ago is meaningless today.
conanbatt 7y ago
Without getting into the numbers, this is the right approach: Some people argue Property taxes vs Land Value taxes thinking it is roughly the same, and that althought it might change tax structure it wouldnt change rent prices. But thats true if you look at it statically: dynamically, you make poeple in single family homes want to abandon them and sell them to developers, so you naturally turn an enemy (nimby) into an ally (sell for developers).
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Meanwhile, the cost to the city in terms of infrastructure (pipes, roads, drainage, etc) is much lower than the houses in the subdivision down the road The costs in terms of lots of services that aren't physical infrastructure scales with population, though, and for some services (or for adverse impacts that services don't fully mitigate) is also higher, rather than lower, for the same population when density is higher; e.g., crime rates per capita tend to go up with population density.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  The base of the land value tax is the value of the land though. If the land is in the middle of a high population density area then the land is worth more and it generates more tax revenue. The difference between this and property tax is that if you have a 12 story building on one piece of land and a 2 story building on the adjacent one, otherwise identical piece of land, they both pay the same tax, giving the second property owner more incentive to build.
  - taysic 7y ago
    And then what when everything has become skyscrapers? I think it’s perfectly ok that not everyplace wants this end result.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      You only do this in the places where you want everything to become skyscrapers. There is no real need for it in Des Monies or other places that already have reasonable housing costs.
    - imtringued 7y ago
      This is how the problem started in the first place.
malyk 7y ago
I’ve owned property in Virginia and California and both the counties I lived in break out the assessed value of you land and your property as separate line items on your bill. They do NOT break your payment into multiple lines. For example, my current home is assessed as $150k land value and $350k house value for a total of $500k.
sbzodnsbd 7y ago
“The difference matters” I don’t see how, but I don’t fully understand how your assessment works. My city’s assessment is close to the market value [1] for the whole property, so it’s a mute point. Either way, they do give me a breakdown, which I agree is right (land about 33% of overall value). Again, for rental properties, there is a disincentive to having low density housing (my condo value in a 20 story building is assessed as 20% land) [1] close to what I believe I can sell the house for

eveningcoffee 7y ago

It sounds nice until people are forced out of their homes because suddenly the area becomes hip.

mabbo 7y ago
That's going to happen to areas no matter what. There is very little you can do about that. What we can do is increase housing supply so that prices of all homes are lower.
- throwaway34241 7y ago
  For primary residences you could also do things like defer payment on the increases until sale, so no one is forced out of their home but the people who have huge capital gains do not also get a tax break. Rental property shouldn't need a special break though, if there's a housing shortage and prices are up it's very likely that rents are up too.
sbzodnsbd 7y ago
I wasn’t making a value judgement; just stating that my land vale does affect my taxes