3 ms·

No, owning land is a revenue neutral activity. Owning housing is not. Landlords charge rent above the rental value of the unimproved land. The difference is the

No, owning land is a revenue neutral activity. Owning housing is not. Landlords charge rent above the rental value of the unimproved land. The difference is their revenue. That revenue is greater than the cost of building and maintain the building so landlords make profit.

salawat 5y ago
If you tax the land, any value not capable of being extracted from said ownership before the tax will just get shunted into the ask price buyers have to meet to rent in the abscence of explicit controls to the contrary. That's just how it works. Like, even if I eschew it personally, right, as an unusually enlightened landlord, there will be a large population of landlord's that won't. Props for me maybe that I always get renters, but I'm not at all sure that this model of taxation will deliver on what Henry George hoped. After reading up a bit more on the topic, I'm even more convinced of this. In fact, all this would really serve to do is encourage maximum development/urbanization by guaranteeing that those that urbanize become more efficient at extracting land rent than those that actually make that possible. Take the farmer of 100 acres to the multi story tenement operator of occupancy 50 on say 10. The farmer at about a 2.1 acre to tenant ratio is relied upon to keep everyone fed, but with his 100 acres is paying much more in rent than the tenement operator, who is paying tax on 1/10th the "land" but extracting many times the "rent" in term of having developed upwards, where the farmer can't do so for having to rely on tillage to keep everyone alive. Let us say the farmer is the primary hirer of labor in this microcosm. He's both bearing the tax burden, plus paying his laborers, while the tenement operator contents himself hiring a paltry few, and exploiting his rent extraction. Also, under the Georgist idea of land are all the natural resources of such as wind, sunlight etc... What if our tenement operator blocks or shades the farmer's tillage, rendering it unfit for growing? Or blocking the dominant wind approach? What if a river passes through one, or both parcels of land? Is one to get a discount for land shaded into inexploitability by another's construction? By airflow impeded through unit volume per unit time? What if our tenants wash themselves and dump waste upstream of the farmer, which is then used to irrigate his crops, creating a public health hazard? How is that valuated? A punitive tax extracted from the tenement owner? He may not even take part in this behavior. His tenants? Not supposed to pass it on, remember. I'm still reading up on it, but it just feels like the entire idea started to get thought through, then all conversation and analysis stopped, and someone declared this panacea and went home. I'm left hankering for a big dose of "show your work". But again, I've just started reading.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  > If you tax the land, any value not capable of being extracted from said ownership before the tax will just get shunted into the ask price buyers have to meet to rent in the abscence of explicit controls to the contrary. This is false. The rental market has supply that is effectively fixed. Therefore, landlords are already charging the maximum that renters are willing to pay. If they raised rent the renters would move or buy. Landlords that have efficiently used their land would have taxes go down, so people would move to their properties. > In fact, all this would really serve to do is encourage maximum development/urbanization This is one of the many points of land value tax. Valuable land should have expensive buildings on it. Building single family homes in an area that is in high demand is incredibly wasteful. Of course you should be able to do it, but it should be expensive. > Take the farmer of 100 acres to the multi story tenement operator of occupancy 50 on say 10. Farm land is much, much less valuable than tenement land. There's no way to say who would pay more taxes just based off this information. Either way, it makes sense for the tenement owner to make more money since he owns the building. The farmer owns no improvements to his land. > Also, under the Georgist idea of land are all the natural resources of such as wind, sunlight Yes. > What if our tenement operator blocks or shades the farmer's tillage, rendering it unfit for growing? Or blocking the dominant wind approach? What if a river passes through one, or both parcels of land? Is one to get a discount for land shaded into inexploitability by another's construction? By airflow impeded through unit volume per unit time? The farmers tax would decrease. > What if our tenants wash themselves and dump waste upstream of the farmer, which is then used to irrigate his crops, creating a public health hazard? How is that valuated? A punitive tax extracted from the tenement owner? He may not even take part in this behavior. His tenants? Not supposed to pass it on, remember. Dumping waste is illegal. Here is a breakdown of all the great things LVT provides. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progress-and-poverty https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr...

salawat 5y ago

If you tax the land, any value not capable of being extracted from said ownership before the tax will just get shunted into the ask price buyers have to meet to rent in the abscence of explicit controls to the contrary. That's just how it works. Like, even if I eschew it personally, right, as an unusually enlightened landlord, there will be a large population of landlord's that won't. Props for me maybe that I always get renters, but I'm not at all sure that this model of taxation will deliver on what Henry George hoped. After reading up a bit more on the topic, I'm even more convinced of this. In fact, all this would really serve to do is encourage maximum development/urbanization by guaranteeing that those that urbanize become more efficient at extracting land rent than those that actually make that possible. Take the farmer of 100 acres to the multi story tenement operator of occupancy 50 on say 10. The farmer at about a 2.1 acre to tenant ratio is relied upon to keep everyone fed, but with his 100 acres is paying much more in rent than the tenement operator, who is paying tax on 1/10th the "land" but extracting many times the "rent" in term of having developed upwards, where the farmer can't do so for having to rely on tillage to keep everyone alive. Let us say the farmer is the primary hirer of labor in this microcosm. He's both bearing the tax burden, plus paying his laborers, while the tenement operator contents himself hiring a paltry few, and exploiting his rent extraction. Also, under the Georgist idea of land are all the natural resources of such as wind, sunlight etc... What if our tenement operator blocks or shades the farmer's tillage, rendering it unfit for growing? Or blocking the dominant wind approach? What if a river passes through one, or both parcels of land? Is one to get a discount for land shaded into inexploitability by another's construction? By airflow impeded through unit volume per unit time? What if our tenants wash themselves and dump waste upstream of the farmer, which is then used to irrigate his crops, creating a public health hazard? How is that valuated? A punitive tax extracted from the tenement owner? He may not even take part in this behavior. His tenants? Not supposed to pass it on, remember. I'm still reading up on it, but it just feels like the entire idea started to get thought through, then all conversation and analysis stopped, and someone declared this panacea and went home. I'm left hankering for a big dose of "show your work". But again, I've just started reading.

colinmhayes 5y ago
> If you tax the land, any value not capable of being extracted from said ownership before the tax will just get shunted into the ask price buyers have to meet to rent in the abscence of explicit controls to the contrary. This is false. The rental market has supply that is effectively fixed. Therefore, landlords are already charging the maximum that renters are willing to pay. If they raised rent the renters would move or buy. Landlords that have efficiently used their land would have taxes go down, so people would move to their properties. > In fact, all this would really serve to do is encourage maximum development/urbanization This is one of the many points of land value tax. Valuable land should have expensive buildings on it. Building single family homes in an area that is in high demand is incredibly wasteful. Of course you should be able to do it, but it should be expensive. > Take the farmer of 100 acres to the multi story tenement operator of occupancy 50 on say 10. Farm land is much, much less valuable than tenement land. There's no way to say who would pay more taxes just based off this information. Either way, it makes sense for the tenement owner to make more money since he owns the building. The farmer owns no improvements to his land. > Also, under the Georgist idea of land are all the natural resources of such as wind, sunlight Yes. > What if our tenement operator blocks or shades the farmer's tillage, rendering it unfit for growing? Or blocking the dominant wind approach? What if a river passes through one, or both parcels of land? Is one to get a discount for land shaded into inexploitability by another's construction? By airflow impeded through unit volume per unit time? The farmers tax would decrease. > What if our tenants wash themselves and dump waste upstream of the farmer, which is then used to irrigate his crops, creating a public health hazard? How is that valuated? A punitive tax extracted from the tenement owner? He may not even take part in this behavior. His tenants? Not supposed to pass it on, remember. Dumping waste is illegal. Here is a breakdown of all the great things LVT provides. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progress-and-poverty https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr...