3 ms·

Land value taxes are effectively one implementation. Land value taxes necessitate that high-value land be put to productive economic use. I think this is a nic

Land value taxes are effectively one implementation. Land value taxes necessitate that high-value land be put to productive economic use. I think this is a nice taxation strategy given that land can be considered a common good (and it's finite, and you didn't make it).

3pt14159 5y ago
I agree, but not just on land value. If you adjust the base rate for the land by how wide the plot is on the street you end up with a MUCH more walkable city. It's like a more efficient sorting algorithm, because once you get to the store you need you can just walk right in and find everything you need. Right, like imagine how stupid it is for us to be walking by squares. We have to walk across 25% of the perimeter of every building we go by. If they're thin rectangles then you only walk by, say 5% until you get to the store you need.
- jaredklewis 5y ago
  At least in theory, an ordinary land value tax would have this effect, as if having street side property is considered desirable by the market, the value of such properties with more would increase. Of course the effect could be amplified by add-on adjustments, but one of the beauties of LVT is the simplicity.
  - 3pt14159 5y ago
    In a dense urban environment the LVT wouldn't cover this case well because the land value of a rectangle of the same area of a square is roughly the same. It's access to the street that is valuable, at least for reasonably sized blocks. This isn't really theoretical, I've been to cities where this type of taxing system was in place and it's completely different than what I find in, say, Toronto where giant big box stores take up a huge chunk of major downtown streets like Queen St.
    - s0rce 5y ago
      A LVT doesn't have to be based on the land area. A plot with more frontage on a busy main street will be more valuable and hence taxed more.
    - fredophile 5y ago
      I don't understand how this would make a difference. The depth of the block is already fixed so the only way to add area is to make your store wider and increase the space it takes up on the street. Taxing width just seems like it would artifically raise the value of buildings on blocks that are deeper if the blocks are irregular enough to have some variation.
syshum 5y ago
land value tax (or economic land rent) is normally seen as a REPLACEMENT for all other taxation, not an addition to it. "Land" in economics means natural resources. Land includes three-dimensional space; natural materials such as oil, water, and minerals; wildlife and genetic endowments, and the electro-magnetic spectrum. Nature and natural resources are prior to and apart from human action. I would whole heartily support replacing taxes on Labor (aka income tax), with taxes on economic land, equality and natural moral law implies equal self ownership. Therefore they should fully own their own wages and products of their own labor. However self-ownership does not apply to what a person has not produced namely natural resources aka economic land. I however can not support adding a land value tax in addition to our current tax system

3pt14159 5y ago

I agree, but not just on land value. If you adjust the base rate for the land by how wide the plot is on the street you end up with a MUCH more walkable city. It's like a more efficient sorting algorithm, because once you get to the store you need you can just walk right in and find everything you need. Right, like imagine how stupid it is for us to be walking by squares. We have to walk across 25% of the perimeter of every building we go by. If they're thin rectangles then you only walk by, say 5% until you get to the store you need.

jaredklewis 5y ago
At least in theory, an ordinary land value tax would have this effect, as if having street side property is considered desirable by the market, the value of such properties with more would increase. Of course the effect could be amplified by add-on adjustments, but one of the beauties of LVT is the simplicity.
- 3pt14159 5y ago
  In a dense urban environment the LVT wouldn't cover this case well because the land value of a rectangle of the same area of a square is roughly the same. It's access to the street that is valuable, at least for reasonably sized blocks. This isn't really theoretical, I've been to cities where this type of taxing system was in place and it's completely different than what I find in, say, Toronto where giant big box stores take up a huge chunk of major downtown streets like Queen St.
  - s0rce 5y ago
    A LVT doesn't have to be based on the land area. A plot with more frontage on a busy main street will be more valuable and hence taxed more.
  - fredophile 5y ago
    I don't understand how this would make a difference. The depth of the block is already fixed so the only way to add area is to make your store wider and increase the space it takes up on the street. Taxing width just seems like it would artifically raise the value of buildings on blocks that are deeper if the blocks are irregular enough to have some variation.

syshum 5y ago

land value tax (or economic land rent) is normally seen as a REPLACEMENT for all other taxation, not an addition to it. "Land" in economics means natural resources. Land includes three-dimensional space; natural materials such as oil, water, and minerals; wildlife and genetic endowments, and the electro-magnetic spectrum. Nature and natural resources are prior to and apart from human action. I would whole heartily support replacing taxes on Labor (aka income tax), with taxes on economic land, equality and natural moral law implies equal self ownership. Therefore they should fully own their own wages and products of their own labor. However self-ownership does not apply to what a person has not produced namely natural resources aka economic land. I however can not support adding a land value tax in addition to our current tax system