5 ms·

I was excited to read this article, but by the end it felt like a jumble of unrelated conjectures examined in isolation from each other that all seem to be pres

I was excited to read this article, but by the end it felt like a jumble of unrelated conjectures examined in isolation from each other that all seem to be presented in a way that deliberately ignores any downsides: For example: > Also, keep in mind that LVT would see the elimination of the portion of property tax that falls on buildings. I just checked my own property tax records (I live in the suburbs of a medium-sized town far from any major urban cores). If the assessed land share more than doubled to 40%, under a 100% LVT regime I'd actually save $545.05 on my property taxes every year–and that's without a Citizen's Dividend. Picking the author’s house, applying arbitrary land value tax numbers to it, and declaring a net tax savings for the author as a victory for LVT is not really a useful data point. It seems that actually analyzing the winners and losers of a LVT would require a more thorough simulation, but that’s outside the scope of the article. The article also had an unsettlingly high number of “If we assume that X is true, then Y is a reasonable conclusion” while completely sidestepping an examination of whether or not “X” was true or even reasonable. The second part looks to be more interesting: I’d like to see some arguments for why a LVT wouldn’t just be passed along to the renters like every other expense is currently.

Hermitian909 5y ago
> all seem to be presented in a way that deliberately ignores any downsides If I understand correctly, the point of this article (one of several) is just to establish that a land tax would constitute a large amount of money. I get the impression the article was supposed to merely establish whether a land tax would generate a substantial amount of money whether good or bad, though admittedly the author tips his hand as to what his conclusion is. I'm also hopeful for the next article, I've been wanting a good reference on Georgism that wasn't book length to point people at for years.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > If I understand correctly, the point of this article (one of several) is just to establish that a land tax would constitute a large amount of money. We could make a land value tax constitute any amount we’d like. Just take the value you want it to produce, divide by the assessed value of all of the land, and you have your tax rate. That’s not an interesting question, though. The interesting part is whether or not that’s reasonable or fair, and to explore who wins and loses.
  - smnrchrds 5y ago
    > Just take the value you want it to produce, divide by the assessed value of all of the land, and you have your tax rate. That's how my city determines property tax rates! Cities in my province are not allowed to run a deficit. So every year, the city look as assessed value of all properties, how much budget it needs for the year, divides the two, and voila! Tax rate! It's actually a bit more complicated because the residential and commercial tax rates are different and the city has revenue sources other than property taxes, but it is largely like that.
  - amablue 5y ago
    The Georgist answer is that the government wouldn't decide the value of the land, the market would. If the government is setting it, it's almost certainly not pricing it optimally.
  - ItsMonkk 5y ago
    If you tax the land at a rate greater than a 100% LVT, the market price of the building will be less than the improvement value, and therefore there will not be a good reason for builders to build. This will create distortions that are harmful and you will ultimately see less tax money.
    - smnrchrds 5y ago
      More than 100% over how long?
      - akvadrako 5y ago
        Its basically rent so it doesnt matter if you calculate it by day or by year.
      - midasuni 5y ago
        You calculate the rent at day $500 per month and tax at 550 per month. Remember the valuation is based on the rental value of the land, not the capital purchase of the land.
- tmnvix 5y ago
  This book review on the same site does a pretty good job in my opinion: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progress-and-poverty https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr...
MrPowers 5y ago
For the winners / losers computation, one thing that's clear is that land value taxes are highly progressive. Rich people own most of the land. There are no tax loopholes to evade land taxes.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > There are no tax loopholes to evade land taxes. Of course there is! You just lobby or bribe your politicians to value your land at a lower amount. They make up for it by valuing someone else’s land at a higher amount. So much of the LVT discourse assumes perfect valuations, but if you reduce everything to these variable valuations then the politics will just start modifying the valuations. We’d have an entire book full of LVT modifiers, exceptions, and tax breaks in no time.
  - MrPowers 5y ago
    All the land value taxes would be public record. Think it'd be hard to have your land valued differently than your neighbor.
    - runnerup 5y ago
      This LVT is lower because the land is closer to a highway, therefore less desirable due to pollution. This LVT is higher because the land is closer to a highway, therefore more desirable due to ease of commute. This LVT is lower because the land is closer to heavy industry, therefore less desirable due to pollution. This LVT is higher because the land is closer to heavy industry, therefore more desirable due to being closer to the largest employer. This LVT is lower because the land is more likely to flood. This LVT is higher because the land is closer to the beach. I agree these superficial "examples" would appear absurd to the people who own the land, but so much of property taxes are already shenanigans. I'm not convinced that Georgist LVT will make this any worse than it already is, but things are currently terrible in this regard and I expect they'll continue to be terrible with a Georgist LVT. Maybe a little better because at least with LVT there would be fewer variables to hide the nepotism behind.
    - 5y ago
boomboomsubban 5y ago
>The article also had an unsettlingly high number of “If we assume that X is true, then Y is a reasonable conclusion” while completely sidestepping an examination of whether or not “X” was true or even reasonable Those are generally after listing a range of different projections, and are something like "if we assume the lowest projection is true, we see x, with the highest we see y. Both are significant amounts."
throwaway34241 5y ago
> The second part looks to be more interesting: I’d like to see some arguments for why a LVT wouldn’t just be passed along to the renters like every other expense is currently. I think the general idea goes something like: a new apartment can collect $10k/mo rent, and so after construction expenses a developer can pay say $5k/mo for the land. These numbers don't change with a LVT or not. Without the LVT, the $5k/mo that they can afford translates to say a $500k mortgage, which roughly determines the land price (as multiple developers bid for the same land). With a LVT, there's say a $2k/mo tax, so they only have $3k/mo to pay the mortgage, which translates to a $300k land price using the same logic. So by working backwards in this simple thought experiment the LVT is just reducing the value of the land without changing much else about the housing market. Intuitively it also sounds reasonable that taxing land values might reduce land values as a result. I'd be interested to see the upcoming detailed analysis though.

Hermitian909 5y ago

> all seem to be presented in a way that deliberately ignores any downsides If I understand correctly, the point of this article (one of several) is just to establish that a land tax would constitute a large amount of money. I get the impression the article was supposed to merely establish whether a land tax would generate a substantial amount of money whether good or bad, though admittedly the author tips his hand as to what his conclusion is. I'm also hopeful for the next article, I've been wanting a good reference on Georgism that wasn't book length to point people at for years.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> If I understand correctly, the point of this article (one of several) is just to establish that a land tax would constitute a large amount of money. We could make a land value tax constitute any amount we’d like. Just take the value you want it to produce, divide by the assessed value of all of the land, and you have your tax rate. That’s not an interesting question, though. The interesting part is whether or not that’s reasonable or fair, and to explore who wins and loses.
- smnrchrds 5y ago
  > Just take the value you want it to produce, divide by the assessed value of all of the land, and you have your tax rate. That's how my city determines property tax rates! Cities in my province are not allowed to run a deficit. So every year, the city look as assessed value of all properties, how much budget it needs for the year, divides the two, and voila! Tax rate! It's actually a bit more complicated because the residential and commercial tax rates are different and the city has revenue sources other than property taxes, but it is largely like that.
- amablue 5y ago
  The Georgist answer is that the government wouldn't decide the value of the land, the market would. If the government is setting it, it's almost certainly not pricing it optimally.
- ItsMonkk 5y ago
  If you tax the land at a rate greater than a 100% LVT, the market price of the building will be less than the improvement value, and therefore there will not be a good reason for builders to build. This will create distortions that are harmful and you will ultimately see less tax money.
  - smnrchrds 5y ago
    More than 100% over how long?
    - akvadrako 5y ago
      Its basically rent so it doesnt matter if you calculate it by day or by year.
    - midasuni 5y ago
      You calculate the rent at day $500 per month and tax at 550 per month. Remember the valuation is based on the rental value of the land, not the capital purchase of the land.
tmnvix 5y ago
This book review on the same site does a pretty good job in my opinion: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progress-and-poverty https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr...

MrPowers 5y ago

For the winners / losers computation, one thing that's clear is that land value taxes are highly progressive. Rich people own most of the land. There are no tax loopholes to evade land taxes.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> There are no tax loopholes to evade land taxes. Of course there is! You just lobby or bribe your politicians to value your land at a lower amount. They make up for it by valuing someone else’s land at a higher amount. So much of the LVT discourse assumes perfect valuations, but if you reduce everything to these variable valuations then the politics will just start modifying the valuations. We’d have an entire book full of LVT modifiers, exceptions, and tax breaks in no time.
- MrPowers 5y ago
  All the land value taxes would be public record. Think it'd be hard to have your land valued differently than your neighbor.
  - runnerup 5y ago
    This LVT is lower because the land is closer to a highway, therefore less desirable due to pollution. This LVT is higher because the land is closer to a highway, therefore more desirable due to ease of commute. This LVT is lower because the land is closer to heavy industry, therefore less desirable due to pollution. This LVT is higher because the land is closer to heavy industry, therefore more desirable due to being closer to the largest employer. This LVT is lower because the land is more likely to flood. This LVT is higher because the land is closer to the beach. I agree these superficial "examples" would appear absurd to the people who own the land, but so much of property taxes are already shenanigans. I'm not convinced that Georgist LVT will make this any worse than it already is, but things are currently terrible in this regard and I expect they'll continue to be terrible with a Georgist LVT. Maybe a little better because at least with LVT there would be fewer variables to hide the nepotism behind.
  - 5y ago

boomboomsubban 5y ago

>The article also had an unsettlingly high number of “If we assume that X is true, then Y is a reasonable conclusion” while completely sidestepping an examination of whether or not “X” was true or even reasonable Those are generally after listing a range of different projections, and are something like "if we assume the lowest projection is true, we see x, with the highest we see y. Both are significant amounts."

throwaway34241 5y ago

> The second part looks to be more interesting: I’d like to see some arguments for why a LVT wouldn’t just be passed along to the renters like every other expense is currently. I think the general idea goes something like: a new apartment can collect $10k/mo rent, and so after construction expenses a developer can pay say $5k/mo for the land. These numbers don't change with a LVT or not. Without the LVT, the $5k/mo that they can afford translates to say a $500k mortgage, which roughly determines the land price (as multiple developers bid for the same land). With a LVT, there's say a $2k/mo tax, so they only have $3k/mo to pay the mortgage, which translates to a $300k land price using the same logic. So by working backwards in this simple thought experiment the LVT is just reducing the value of the land without changing much else about the housing market. Intuitively it also sounds reasonable that taxing land values might reduce land values as a result. I'd be interested to see the upcoming detailed analysis though.