5 ms·

In this system people would not have a lot of incentive to keep improving the land. Still I can see some value in it, but there needs to be a away to feel that

In this system people would not have a lot of incentive to keep improving the land. Still I can see some value in it, but there needs to be a away to feel that ownership and having value in taking care of the land.

harimau777 7y ago
I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that Georgists often do not advocate literally reselling the land every so many years. Rather they advocate that the value of the land be evaluated periodically and used to set a 100% property tax on that value. However, improvements to the land are not factored into the valuation. The idea then is that the owner can turn a profit by improving the land but not by simply owning the land as is.
- AgentOrange1234 7y ago
  Over the long run, does that end up being much different than typical US property taxes? I think the US typical house pays prop taxes every year based on land + improvements. Wouldn’t this be even less of a tax?
  - rcpt 7y ago
    It would be a very high tax for the Los Angeles County Club. It would be a comparably low tax for 432 Park.
  - dodobirdlord 7y ago
    The intention of a land value tax (as this is called) is to zero out the component of property taxes based on improvements, but increase the component based on the value of the land itself. Whether this ended up being an increase or decrease in the tax rate would mostly depend on how improved the land was. If the land is very improved, this should end up being a reduction in taxes, and for mostly unimproved land it would be an increase in taxes. The intention is to encourage people who own unimproved land to either improve it or sell it to someone who will. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
- chii 7y ago
  > improvements to the land are not factored into the valuation. but what is the value of the land if it's not the improvements upon the land? If i left the land wild and free and un-used, what would the the value? Is it the value someone else would've paid?
  - dodobirdlord 7y ago
    > but what is the value of the land if it's not the improvements upon the land? Following this line of reasoning would suggest that all unimproved land is always worthless, which is obviously not true given that people buy unimproved land all the time. Moreover, it would suggest that knocking down a building on a piece of land is never a correct decision, since land with a building on it would always be worth more than that same land with the building removed, which is also obviously not the case. > Is it the value someone else would've paid? Yup, the market value of the land were it unimproved. There are various ways to estimate this value.
    - nybble41 7y ago
      > ... would suggest that all unimproved land is always worthless, which is obviously not true given that people buy unimproved land all the time. The problem is what counts as an "improvement". LVT proponents tend to go with the technical/legal definition, which is basically permanent structures built on the property, and consider everything else which contributes to the market value of the property to be part of the "unimproved" value. However, that "unimproved" value was still created by human beings, not an inherent part of the land. Some or all of that "unimproved" value may even be due to the efforts of the owner of the land, without involving any structures on the land itself. To illustrate, let's say a developer buys some vacant land and, after reserving space for residential lots, adds roads, electricity, water, sewer, communications, convenience stores, etc. Those residential lots are now worth quite a bit more than the original land, despite having no "improvements" as yet. That increase in value is 100% due to the efforts of the developer, and yet a LVT would call it "unearned" and attempt to tax it away. Where is the fairness in that?
  - eru 7y ago
    > but what is the value of the land if it's not the improvements upon the land? Location. A free and un-used plot in SF is worth a lot.

harimau777 7y ago

I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that Georgists often do not advocate literally reselling the land every so many years. Rather they advocate that the value of the land be evaluated periodically and used to set a 100% property tax on that value. However, improvements to the land are not factored into the valuation. The idea then is that the owner can turn a profit by improving the land but not by simply owning the land as is.

AgentOrange1234 7y ago
Over the long run, does that end up being much different than typical US property taxes? I think the US typical house pays prop taxes every year based on land + improvements. Wouldn’t this be even less of a tax?
- rcpt 7y ago
  It would be a very high tax for the Los Angeles County Club. It would be a comparably low tax for 432 Park.
- dodobirdlord 7y ago
  The intention of a land value tax (as this is called) is to zero out the component of property taxes based on improvements, but increase the component based on the value of the land itself. Whether this ended up being an increase or decrease in the tax rate would mostly depend on how improved the land was. If the land is very improved, this should end up being a reduction in taxes, and for mostly unimproved land it would be an increase in taxes. The intention is to encourage people who own unimproved land to either improve it or sell it to someone who will. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
chii 7y ago
> improvements to the land are not factored into the valuation. but what is the value of the land if it's not the improvements upon the land? If i left the land wild and free and un-used, what would the the value? Is it the value someone else would've paid?
- dodobirdlord 7y ago
  > but what is the value of the land if it's not the improvements upon the land? Following this line of reasoning would suggest that all unimproved land is always worthless, which is obviously not true given that people buy unimproved land all the time. Moreover, it would suggest that knocking down a building on a piece of land is never a correct decision, since land with a building on it would always be worth more than that same land with the building removed, which is also obviously not the case. > Is it the value someone else would've paid? Yup, the market value of the land were it unimproved. There are various ways to estimate this value.
  - nybble41 7y ago
    > ... would suggest that all unimproved land is always worthless, which is obviously not true given that people buy unimproved land all the time. The problem is what counts as an "improvement". LVT proponents tend to go with the technical/legal definition, which is basically permanent structures built on the property, and consider everything else which contributes to the market value of the property to be part of the "unimproved" value. However, that "unimproved" value was still created by human beings, not an inherent part of the land. Some or all of that "unimproved" value may even be due to the efforts of the owner of the land, without involving any structures on the land itself. To illustrate, let's say a developer buys some vacant land and, after reserving space for residential lots, adds roads, electricity, water, sewer, communications, convenience stores, etc. Those residential lots are now worth quite a bit more than the original land, despite having no "improvements" as yet. That increase in value is 100% due to the efforts of the developer, and yet a LVT would call it "unearned" and attempt to tax it away. Where is the fairness in that?
- eru 7y ago
  > but what is the value of the land if it's not the improvements upon the land? Location. A free and un-used plot in SF is worth a lot.