3 ms·
They're quite different, because improvements to the land (buildings, etc) are not taxed under a land value tax but are taxed under a property tax. The argumen
by sagarm 7y ago
They're quite different, because improvements to the land (buildings, etc) are not taxed under a land value tax but are taxed under a property tax.
The argument is that the value of the land itself is collectively created, so it is morally justifiable to capture this value for public benefit. On the other hand, improvements on a particular piece of land represent an individual's investment.
- zozbot234 7y agoThere's a better-known argument that land itself is in fixed supply. (Even where land reclamation is a thing, say in the Netherlands, it's not the private sector doing it.) If you pay a tax on land rent, this doesn't alter your behavior compared to paying no tax, because you would've had to forgo that same rent anyway as part of holding that land for yourself. The fact that land rent correlates so well with locally-created value also makes it quite convenient as a source of funds for local government.
- iguy 7y agoSure. But if it's better, it's worth doing anyway. The question of how best to collect taxes is orthogonal to questions of what to spend them on.
- sagarm 7y agoYes, it's also economically efficient. A moral objection to land taxation is common enough that I now lead with the moral argument.
- CuriousSkeptic 7y agoI would extend that argument even further. Not only is it morally justified to capture the value, its also the only means by which the private ownership can be justified at all. It is, after all, our rule of law and common institutions that will enforce the title to begin with. From a position of Rawls veil of ignorance, I don’t see how you could justify land title being granted on first come first served basis. Leased to the highest bidder (with a public dividend) seems much more agreeable.