3 ms·

Sibling comments have provided responses to other aspects, which all also seem right to me. The proposed land tax in my state has land tax for seniors accrue a

Sibling comments have provided responses to other aspects, which all also seem right to me. The proposed land tax in my state has land tax for seniors accrue against the property and is paid upon sale or death. The objection to this is that it's a "death duty", to which the response is that you did absolutely nothing to help increase that land value. In fact, you worked against increasing efficiency by holding on when the land could be used for more productive purposes. That's why the Georgist land tax is such a good idea; it taxes you based on the gains that the rest of society generated for you. Whereas a property tax also taxes you for your own investments.

abstractbarista 5y ago
I'd be fine with paying a tax "on the gains that the rest of society generated for you" upon me selling that land to someone else. Just like capital gains on equities. I don't pay until I realize. I'm happy to pay some property tax in the meantime to keep gov't services running in the area. But any other method is terrifying to me and makes me start thinking "What super rural state can I move to in retirement to buy a nice parcel and be seriously left alone these days?"
- rcpt 5y ago
  With equities you're helping the economy by keeping your money invested in our companies. We need investors capital to remain competitive and we should incentivze you to stay invested as long as possible. With land you're continually depriving the local community of the space they need to live and work. Every hour spent commuting past your yard is an hour wasted. You should continually pay for the privilege of exclusive access to an in demand part of the nation.
  - sagarm 5y ago
    Or put more simply: land ownership is a form of consumption. Stock ownership is not.
jjav 5y ago
> you did absolutely nothing to help increase that land value That's pretty unfair. People who lived a lifetime in that house did contribute their bit to making the area thrive and become more valuable by keeping the place nice, being good neighbors etc. If you think that doesn't contribute at all, consider the opposite. If they lived there for decades and let the house go to ruin and were belligerently antisocial all the time, that drives away nicer people and helps turn the neighborhood into a bad place.

abstractbarista 5y ago

I'd be fine with paying a tax "on the gains that the rest of society generated for you" upon me selling that land to someone else. Just like capital gains on equities. I don't pay until I realize. I'm happy to pay some property tax in the meantime to keep gov't services running in the area. But any other method is terrifying to me and makes me start thinking "What super rural state can I move to in retirement to buy a nice parcel and be seriously left alone these days?"

rcpt 5y ago
With equities you're helping the economy by keeping your money invested in our companies. We need investors capital to remain competitive and we should incentivze you to stay invested as long as possible. With land you're continually depriving the local community of the space they need to live and work. Every hour spent commuting past your yard is an hour wasted. You should continually pay for the privilege of exclusive access to an in demand part of the nation.
- sagarm 5y ago
  Or put more simply: land ownership is a form of consumption. Stock ownership is not.

jjav 5y ago

> you did absolutely nothing to help increase that land value That's pretty unfair. People who lived a lifetime in that house did contribute their bit to making the area thrive and become more valuable by keeping the place nice, being good neighbors etc. If you think that doesn't contribute at all, consider the opposite. If they lived there for decades and let the house go to ruin and were belligerently antisocial all the time, that drives away nicer people and helps turn the neighborhood into a bad place.