4 ms·

I think his point is, you don't get to pass wealth not earned by you to your heirs. You had nothing to do with 300k to 10m appreciation, so you nor your heirs a

I think his point is, you don't get to pass wealth not earned by you to your heirs. You had nothing to do with 300k to 10m appreciation, so you nor your heirs are entitled to it. The appreciation is in land, not in the small improvements to the house. Owners never have influence on the price of land. That is strictly determined by the surrounding dwellings.

rcpt 5y ago
> Owners never have influence on the price of land. One of the most frustrating thing about property tax discourse is that people feel like the fact that they hit the jackpot by accident is grounds for a tax cut. As if getting rich by the work of other is more deserving of a break vs. earning your own wealth.
paisawalla 5y ago
> Owners never have influence on the price of land. That is strictly determined by the surrounding dwellings. But then the owners of those surrounding dwellings also had nothing to do with the appreciation of their houses, right? Only the owners of their surroundings added value, and so on. What a contorted argument you'd have to make, to claim that land somehow accrues value due to zero action of the people who happen to occupy it. Land appreciates because of the choices made by the community who lives there, e.g. to attract industry, prioritize certain uses, create or draw desirable businesses, etc. The choices made by your parents, and the other parents from your previous generation, are almost entirely the reason why a the neighborhood you grew up in appreciates. And they make those decisions for your benefit, because they want to create wealth and community for you. The responses to my comment confirm that yes, liberals absolutely believe nobody has a right to investment of their parents. What an alienating perspective, I hope you guys run with it and shout it from the roofs.
- snidane 5y ago
  You're right, it's the community and its actions that made the land appreciate. Surrounding dwellings and their occupants are just a part of that. You can be entitled to inheriting the value that you and your parents created, wchi you'd somehow have to extract from the surrounding dwellings, the land of which appreciated due to your parents' good actions. You are not entitled to appreciation of your land, because others in the community are responsible for it. You essentially have these solutions: 1. let land owners keep the value created by others in the community, which works only if 100% of members of the community have a piece land, and it has to be of equal value. This inevitably eventually results in a feudal system of landowners and serfs. 2. Take the value of land appreciation from your neighbors properties and they take back value they added to yours. In theory this is is the ideal solution, but omits non-land owners who also contributed 3. distribute the value back to the community responsible for creating the value in the first place by equal share using a citizens' dividend collected by land value tax which captures all the misallocated value appreciation

rcpt 5y ago

> Owners never have influence on the price of land. One of the most frustrating thing about property tax discourse is that people feel like the fact that they hit the jackpot by accident is grounds for a tax cut. As if getting rich by the work of other is more deserving of a break vs. earning your own wealth.

paisawalla 5y ago

> Owners never have influence on the price of land. That is strictly determined by the surrounding dwellings. But then the owners of those surrounding dwellings also had nothing to do with the appreciation of their houses, right? Only the owners of their surroundings added value, and so on. What a contorted argument you'd have to make, to claim that land somehow accrues value due to zero action of the people who happen to occupy it. Land appreciates because of the choices made by the community who lives there, e.g. to attract industry, prioritize certain uses, create or draw desirable businesses, etc. The choices made by your parents, and the other parents from your previous generation, are almost entirely the reason why a the neighborhood you grew up in appreciates. And they make those decisions for your benefit, because they want to create wealth and community for you. The responses to my comment confirm that yes, liberals absolutely believe nobody has a right to investment of their parents. What an alienating perspective, I hope you guys run with it and shout it from the roofs.

snidane 5y ago
You're right, it's the community and its actions that made the land appreciate. Surrounding dwellings and their occupants are just a part of that. You can be entitled to inheriting the value that you and your parents created, wchi you'd somehow have to extract from the surrounding dwellings, the land of which appreciated due to your parents' good actions. You are not entitled to appreciation of your land, because others in the community are responsible for it. You essentially have these solutions: 1. let land owners keep the value created by others in the community, which works only if 100% of members of the community have a piece land, and it has to be of equal value. This inevitably eventually results in a feudal system of landowners and serfs. 2. Take the value of land appreciation from your neighbors properties and they take back value they added to yours. In theory this is is the ideal solution, but omits non-land owners who also contributed 3. distribute the value back to the community responsible for creating the value in the first place by equal share using a citizens' dividend collected by land value tax which captures all the misallocated value appreciation