6 ms·

Basically, the social value of land is 100% socially constructed, but under a system of landownership, it's 100% privately held and all the profit goes to priva

Basically, the social value of land is 100% socially constructed, but under a system of landownership, it's 100% privately held and all the profit goes to private hands. There are multiple empty lots very close to downtown SF which are worth millions, tens of millions that the landlord didn't do jack shit to improve, that everyone else improved the value of, that the entire value of is the location. But when the landlord sells, only they get the value. But it's easy as hell to tax land and impossible to avoid the tax (just show up with cops, what the hell are they going to do, move the land? - and if they don't pay, just sell the land to someone else, although usually the aim is to collect the tax when transactions happen) So tax it. 100%. Georgism's tax suggestions go: have that 100% land tax (not property tax), have no other taxes, that's it. Also tax networks which have an inherent monopoly effect, it was also suggested by Henry George. Nothing to do with agrarian points of view, really. Georgism was created in SF, it was most popular in NYC, and it was talking about the problems of the first properly modern cities in America and Britain.

throwno 7y ago
Do you suppose the owner of the land wants to build on it, but is being blocked by socialists in the government? Do you think this developer bought some lots in SF and left them empty just to make tech bros upset?
- curuinor 7y ago
  In a Georgist system, they would throw up their hands and immediately sell. But the developer isn't selling it because the land is appreciating...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
mc32 7y ago
When you don't or can’t own land you end up with favela-like developments. It’s okay as a sort of transition from homelessness to home ownership but you don’t want that to be the end stage for a city.
- curuinor 7y ago
  Land value tax isn't property tax. Despite my use of the word "expropriation", what George specifically suggested was that people would be able to own land, they just wouldn't benefit any from improvements in land value because of the land value tax. So you would have to improve property and do something with it to benefit from it.
- asdff 7y ago
  You get that in absence of building codes. Right now in many major cities people don't or can't own land, can't build rigid favelas due to building codes, and instead end up living in tent favelas on the sidewalk or sleep in their car. That's not a great end stage for a city, either, but that's the status quo in our investment driven real estate market.
rcurry 7y ago
“But it's easy as hell to tax land and impossible to avoid the tax (just show up with cops, what the hell are they going to do, move the land?“ The revenue man wanted granddaddy bad, headed up the holler with everything he had, ‘fore my time but I’ve been told, he never came back from Copperhead Road...
- curuinor 7y ago
  If you shoot all the cops (and probably the army), then you have conquered the land, congratulations. You are now the state. Probably have to go and make your own cops now.
Barrin92 7y ago
>Basically, the social value of land is 100% socially constructed, but under a system of landownership, it's 100% privately held and all the profit goes to private hands. But this can be said for anything, no? After all the value of every asset is socially constructed, whether that's shares in a company or land seems irrelevant, so if you buy that logic I feel like the Marxist case makes more sense instead of just arbitrarily stopping at land. It also seems counterintuitive because it would essentially mean that someone who holds billions in shares or digital assets has no tax burden under the Georgist logic but a small independent farmer does.
- lmm 7y ago
  You own the value of the goods you've made with your own hands (minus the value of their raw materials if you want to be strict about it), and by extension you can freely trade those. Land is the exception because people don't make it themselves, they lay claim to what's already there (even in the case of "artificial" land, most of the value is in the seabed that was there before rather than what you did). > It also seems counterintuitive because it would essentially mean that someone who holds billions in shares or digital assets has no tax burden under the Georgist logic but a small independent farmer does. Someone living like a billionaire probably owns a much higher value of land (if only what's under their mansion) than a small independent farmer. The land value tax would end up being built into food prices, so farmers wouldn't lose out on the whole unless they're currently growing wastefully; maybe farming would be pushed onto less valuable land, that's sort of the point (but in practice that mostly happens already; farmers near towns wanting to expand would get gradually pushed out via higher taxes rather than getting a windfall for selling up, which is bad for those individual farmers but better for society as a whole).
  - nybble41 7y ago
    > Land is the exception because people don't make it themselves ... People don't make the land but they do make the value of the land. Even if that just consists of recognizing the potential in what is already there. LVT does nothing to distinguish between value resulting from the actions of the owner—apart from a very limited set of formally recognized "improvements", mainly permanent structures—and value resulting from the actions of others. And even if part of the "unimproved" value does result from others' actions, these others are not, in general, the ones receiving the tax.

throwno 7y ago

Do you suppose the owner of the land wants to build on it, but is being blocked by socialists in the government? Do you think this developer bought some lots in SF and left them empty just to make tech bros upset?

curuinor 7y ago
In a Georgist system, they would throw up their hands and immediately sell. But the developer isn't selling it because the land is appreciating...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

mc32 7y ago

When you don't or can’t own land you end up with favela-like developments. It’s okay as a sort of transition from homelessness to home ownership but you don’t want that to be the end stage for a city.

curuinor 7y ago
Land value tax isn't property tax. Despite my use of the word "expropriation", what George specifically suggested was that people would be able to own land, they just wouldn't benefit any from improvements in land value because of the land value tax. So you would have to improve property and do something with it to benefit from it.
asdff 7y ago
You get that in absence of building codes. Right now in many major cities people don't or can't own land, can't build rigid favelas due to building codes, and instead end up living in tent favelas on the sidewalk or sleep in their car. That's not a great end stage for a city, either, but that's the status quo in our investment driven real estate market.

rcurry 7y ago

“But it's easy as hell to tax land and impossible to avoid the tax (just show up with cops, what the hell are they going to do, move the land?“ The revenue man wanted granddaddy bad, headed up the holler with everything he had, ‘fore my time but I’ve been told, he never came back from Copperhead Road...

curuinor 7y ago
If you shoot all the cops (and probably the army), then you have conquered the land, congratulations. You are now the state. Probably have to go and make your own cops now.

Barrin92 7y ago

>Basically, the social value of land is 100% socially constructed, but under a system of landownership, it's 100% privately held and all the profit goes to private hands. But this can be said for anything, no? After all the value of every asset is socially constructed, whether that's shares in a company or land seems irrelevant, so if you buy that logic I feel like the Marxist case makes more sense instead of just arbitrarily stopping at land. It also seems counterintuitive because it would essentially mean that someone who holds billions in shares or digital assets has no tax burden under the Georgist logic but a small independent farmer does.

lmm 7y ago
You own the value of the goods you've made with your own hands (minus the value of their raw materials if you want to be strict about it), and by extension you can freely trade those. Land is the exception because people don't make it themselves, they lay claim to what's already there (even in the case of "artificial" land, most of the value is in the seabed that was there before rather than what you did). > It also seems counterintuitive because it would essentially mean that someone who holds billions in shares or digital assets has no tax burden under the Georgist logic but a small independent farmer does. Someone living like a billionaire probably owns a much higher value of land (if only what's under their mansion) than a small independent farmer. The land value tax would end up being built into food prices, so farmers wouldn't lose out on the whole unless they're currently growing wastefully; maybe farming would be pushed onto less valuable land, that's sort of the point (but in practice that mostly happens already; farmers near towns wanting to expand would get gradually pushed out via higher taxes rather than getting a windfall for selling up, which is bad for those individual farmers but better for society as a whole).
- nybble41 7y ago
  > Land is the exception because people don't make it themselves ... People don't make the land but they do make the value of the land. Even if that just consists of recognizing the potential in what is already there. LVT does nothing to distinguish between value resulting from the actions of the owner—apart from a very limited set of formally recognized "improvements", mainly permanent structures—and value resulting from the actions of others. And even if part of the "unimproved" value does result from others' actions, these others are not, in general, the ones receiving the tax.