3 ms·

you can certainly look at it that way, but the cost to change the lease is way bigger than the "rent". I'm also implying that you shouldn't be taxed on improvem

you can certainly look at it that way, but the cost to change the lease is way bigger than the "rent". I'm also implying that you shouldn't be taxed on improvements you make to the land (like building a house). you pay for occupancy of the land itself and for any services consumed.

nybble41 7y ago
I'm perfectly fine with the idea of a "land value tax" so long as the value of unimproved land is properly assessed: it is only use by humans that gives land economic value, so the value of unimproved land is zero. Feel free to multiply that by whatever rate you see fit.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  imagine you have a single acre of dirt in the middle of the financial district in Manhattan. even if you aren't using it yourself, you really think the value of that land is zero? the fact that you aren't currently using the land for anything doesn't mean someone else couldn't use it for something extremely valuable. you are keeping that land idle at a massive opportunity cost. on the flip side, if you have a huge plot of land out in North Dakota, the tax may well be close to zero.
  - nybble41 7y ago
    > the fact that you aren't currently using the land for anything doesn't mean someone else couldn't use it for something extremely valuable That (speculative) value is based on how they propose to use the land. In other words, their improvements. That acre of dirt in the middle of the financial district might as well not exist, in economic terms, until someone actually builds something on it or otherwise starts using it to satisfy human needs or wants. Put another way, say that acre of land is on the other side of an impassable barrier. It's exactly the same land, but no one can get to it to make use of it. What is its value now? The value comes from how the land is used, not the land itself. If you're proposing to base the tax on what others would be willing to pay for the land (the market value) then this is no longer a land value tax but rather a property tax.
  - xkcd-sucks 7y ago
    In the Manhattan case, perhaps the willingness to sell it constitutes improvement

nybble41 7y ago

I'm perfectly fine with the idea of a "land value tax" so long as the value of unimproved land is properly assessed: it is only use by humans that gives land economic value, so the value of unimproved land is zero. Feel free to multiply that by whatever rate you see fit.

leetcrew 7y ago
imagine you have a single acre of dirt in the middle of the financial district in Manhattan. even if you aren't using it yourself, you really think the value of that land is zero? the fact that you aren't currently using the land for anything doesn't mean someone else couldn't use it for something extremely valuable. you are keeping that land idle at a massive opportunity cost. on the flip side, if you have a huge plot of land out in North Dakota, the tax may well be close to zero.
- nybble41 7y ago
  > the fact that you aren't currently using the land for anything doesn't mean someone else couldn't use it for something extremely valuable That (speculative) value is based on how they propose to use the land. In other words, their improvements. That acre of dirt in the middle of the financial district might as well not exist, in economic terms, until someone actually builds something on it or otherwise starts using it to satisfy human needs or wants. Put another way, say that acre of land is on the other side of an impassable barrier. It's exactly the same land, but no one can get to it to make use of it. What is its value now? The value comes from how the land is used, not the land itself. If you're proposing to base the tax on what others would be willing to pay for the land (the market value) then this is no longer a land value tax but rather a property tax.
- xkcd-sucks 7y ago
  In the Manhattan case, perhaps the willingness to sell it constitutes improvement