3 ms·

Take out the "valuable" because as you point out: there is no value tax. A lot of land owners in the UK sit on large pieces of land. The idea that land has val

Take out the "valuable" because as you point out: there is no value tax. A lot of land owners in the UK sit on large pieces of land. The idea that land has value even when unused is one of this quirks of reasoning that seems "common sense" until you actually stop to think about it, because it makes no sense at all. And is one of the driving forces behind disenfranchisement of indigenous groups in so many countries.

TheTrotters 6y ago
By that logic an empty plot of land in Manhattan would have no value.
- thescriptkiddie 6y ago
  If the owner is legally barred from using it and there is no hope of that changing in the future, then what value would there be?
- TheRealPomax 6y ago
  Yes? That's literally the case: if there is no land tax in Manhattan either, then yes: that land has no value until someone decides to do something with it. But it also shows off how much the idea that "land = value" has been hammered into you. By default, land's just land. It doesn't have value until someone slaps some kind of "land management scheme" on top of it.
neilparikh 6y ago
Land definitely has value when unused. Land is the right to be in a certain geographic location, and exclude others from it. Why would that right not be valuable just because you're not using it? As the other commenter points out, that would imply that empty lots in cities are worthless, and we wouldn't see teardowns selling for millions.
- TheRealPomax 6y ago
  No it is not. Land is just land, and different countries put different policies on top. Just because some land "is yours" doesn't universally mean you get to exclude others from it - as much as you think that's obvious and natural because that's how it is where you live/grew up, the idea that your land is off limits to others is entirely artificial. It's a choice your local government made with regards to land rights. Other places take a very different stance, where land is just land, and you don't get to exclude people from it just because you own it. If you put the land to use, then that part becomes off limit, but merely "being the owner" doesn't confer the right to cordon it off, and people are allowed to freely traverse it. You only acquired the right to generate income from that land. (e.g. folks can't go prancing about your crop fields, but if you own 100 acres and 80 of those are left alone because you live in a country where you value conservation, folks are entirely free to wander those 80 acres)

TheTrotters 6y ago

By that logic an empty plot of land in Manhattan would have no value.

thescriptkiddie 6y ago
If the owner is legally barred from using it and there is no hope of that changing in the future, then what value would there be?
TheRealPomax 6y ago
Yes? That's literally the case: if there is no land tax in Manhattan either, then yes: that land has no value until someone decides to do something with it. But it also shows off how much the idea that "land = value" has been hammered into you. By default, land's just land. It doesn't have value until someone slaps some kind of "land management scheme" on top of it.

neilparikh 6y ago

Land definitely has value when unused. Land is the right to be in a certain geographic location, and exclude others from it. Why would that right not be valuable just because you're not using it? As the other commenter points out, that would imply that empty lots in cities are worthless, and we wouldn't see teardowns selling for millions.

TheRealPomax 6y ago
No it is not. Land is just land, and different countries put different policies on top. Just because some land "is yours" doesn't universally mean you get to exclude others from it - as much as you think that's obvious and natural because that's how it is where you live/grew up, the idea that your land is off limits to others is entirely artificial. It's a choice your local government made with regards to land rights. Other places take a very different stance, where land is just land, and you don't get to exclude people from it just because you own it. If you put the land to use, then that part becomes off limit, but merely "being the owner" doesn't confer the right to cordon it off, and people are allowed to freely traverse it. You only acquired the right to generate income from that land. (e.g. folks can't go prancing about your crop fields, but if you own 100 acres and 80 of those are left alone because you live in a country where you value conservation, folks are entirely free to wander those 80 acres)