4 ms·

Yes, we should probably treat land as much more of a public good, especially in cities. The true value of land has much more to do with the services nearby: jo

Yes, we should probably treat land as much more of a public good, especially in cities. The true value of land has much more to do with the services nearby: jobs, shops, parks, emergency services. The majority of tax should be based on the land value, independent of the cost of structures built on that land. A single-family home (whether it be a shack or a million dollar mansion) in a city center with high land value is depriving the city of a lot of potential utility and should be taxed in proportion to that.

drewmate 6y ago
You might find Georgism [0] interesting. Its tenets include a (steep) land value tax that proponents believe would sort out the 'best use' of land in city centers. It's a compelling idea, but unfortunately the driving force behind American government seems to be once you have something (property, a business, etc...) nobody can do anything that adversely affects it. And Americans (over age 40) already own a LOT of property and would not take kindly to new taxes on it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism#Main_tenets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism#Main_tenets
- prox 6y ago
  This falls in line with the old economic school of how value is created, which fell in disfavor because it didn’t sit right with the upper classes, for clear reasons.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    If you're referencing the LTV, no it doesn't
    - prox 6y ago
      No, I am referencing the Value Of Everything by M.Mazzucato.
  - drewmate 6y ago
    It seems reasonable enough to me, but I don't own any land. I think I'm realistic enough to admit that if I had been born 35 years earlier and had two homes that I paid off in my 40's and had appreciated 350% since then, I would probably feel differently about it. It's a tough nut to crack, for sure.
seoaeu 6y ago
Land values are already captured in property taxes. There's certainly places where property taxes are too low and not doing enough to encourage better usage of the land, but that's straightforward to solve (though admittedly often not that easy politically)
- aeternum 6y ago
  Partially, but property taxes discourage improving the structures on the land as the property tax also increases based on the value of the structure. This is generally the opposite of what want. Renovations, upkeep, and property improvements are good things so why penalize them?
- kortilla 6y ago
  Until property taxes stop taking into account the value of the structure, they are not equivalent at all.
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  Property tax has horrid incentives. We want people to build more on expensive land, not less. LVT forces multi unit housing on prime spots.
andrepd 6y ago
> Yes, we should probably treat land as much more of a public good This is the central idea of Georgism, and it extends neatly to other things which are not the product of anyone's labour, like natural resources, pollution, or even issuance of credit (currently the banks have a monopoly on the power to create money/credit). It's all very interesting, a nice balance which retains the good features of markets but prevents or at least limits the harmful stuff: rent-seeking leeches, pure speculation divorced from fundamentals, etc. > especially in cities This reminds me of the “Lockean proviso”: Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. That is to say, taking natural resources, labouring, and keeping the profits of that activity, is only legitimate insofar as there is still “enough of it, and as good, in left in common for others”. > The true value of land has much more to do with the services nearby Oh absolutely! If a road is built, shops, the neighbourhood improved, schools, businesses, jobs, and therefore the desirability of your land increases... it's you that has to pay society back for what it has given you! It's not the resale value of your land that should rise.

drewmate 6y ago

You might find Georgism [0] interesting. Its tenets include a (steep) land value tax that proponents believe would sort out the 'best use' of land in city centers. It's a compelling idea, but unfortunately the driving force behind American government seems to be once you have something (property, a business, etc...) nobody can do anything that adversely affects it. And Americans (over age 40) already own a LOT of property and would not take kindly to new taxes on it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism#Main_tenets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism#Main_tenets

prox 6y ago
This falls in line with the old economic school of how value is created, which fell in disfavor because it didn’t sit right with the upper classes, for clear reasons.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  If you're referencing the LTV, no it doesn't
  - prox 6y ago
    No, I am referencing the Value Of Everything by M.Mazzucato.
- drewmate 6y ago
  It seems reasonable enough to me, but I don't own any land. I think I'm realistic enough to admit that if I had been born 35 years earlier and had two homes that I paid off in my 40's and had appreciated 350% since then, I would probably feel differently about it. It's a tough nut to crack, for sure.

seoaeu 6y ago

Land values are already captured in property taxes. There's certainly places where property taxes are too low and not doing enough to encourage better usage of the land, but that's straightforward to solve (though admittedly often not that easy politically)

aeternum 6y ago
Partially, but property taxes discourage improving the structures on the land as the property tax also increases based on the value of the structure. This is generally the opposite of what want. Renovations, upkeep, and property improvements are good things so why penalize them?
kortilla 6y ago
Until property taxes stop taking into account the value of the structure, they are not equivalent at all.
colinmhayes 6y ago
Property tax has horrid incentives. We want people to build more on expensive land, not less. LVT forces multi unit housing on prime spots.

andrepd 6y ago

> Yes, we should probably treat land as much more of a public good This is the central idea of Georgism, and it extends neatly to other things which are not the product of anyone's labour, like natural resources, pollution, or even issuance of credit (currently the banks have a monopoly on the power to create money/credit). It's all very interesting, a nice balance which retains the good features of markets but prevents or at least limits the harmful stuff: rent-seeking leeches, pure speculation divorced from fundamentals, etc. > especially in cities This reminds me of the “Lockean proviso”: Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. That is to say, taking natural resources, labouring, and keeping the profits of that activity, is only legitimate insofar as there is still “enough of it, and as good, in left in common for others”. > The true value of land has much more to do with the services nearby Oh absolutely! If a road is built, shops, the neighbourhood improved, schools, businesses, jobs, and therefore the desirability of your land increases... it's you that has to pay society back for what it has given you! It's not the resale value of your land that should rise.