5 ms·

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 t

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.
  - throwaway98211 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williamson_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williamson_Act
    - MrPowers 5y ago
      Yes, definitely agree that California's random property tax laws (like Prop 13) are the opposite of free market, libertarian tax policies like a land tax
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- runnerup 5y ago
  > We’d have an entire book full of LVT modifiers, exceptions, and tax breaks in no time. Indeed, and even without these, we'd have the "LVT assessors" getting bribed or being buddy-buddy with rich landowning families. Obviously we already have that today with property taxes (not to mention permit approvals). Paraphrasing what you said elsewhere, "The interesting part is to explore the net effects." I suspect LVT would end up, overall, encouraging building more housing. It could even be sold as "lowering or eliminating taxes (on improvements to the land)". I also suspect there would be no end to the shenanigans played to manipulate LVT's. I doubt it would be much worse than today's situation, but I might be very surprised!
nwah1 5y ago
That's the real reason it "won't work." Enormous vested interests oppose it. Of course, an engaged and educated populace could overcome that. Or an enlightened elite class who realized they could boost overall wealth and technological advancement with efficient fiscal policy... short run pain for elites in exchange for long run benefits (for them and everyone else).
- neilparikh 5y ago
  > Enormous vested interests oppose it. > Of course, an engaged and educated populace could overcome that. The "populace" is the "vested interest" that opposes it! The majority of voters are homeowners, and thus their material interests lie in land values rising. As a concrete example of this, Prop 13 was passed by a referendum, not politicians. As a general point, I think housing is the major weak policy point for the left. The overarching theory that drives their politics is that the wealthy and powerful are the major barriers to positive change. Housing is the one area where that isn't true; the barrier to improvement is the "average" person.

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.
- throwaway98211 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williamson_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williamson_Act
  - MrPowers 5y ago
    Yes, definitely agree that California's random property tax laws (like Prop 13) are the opposite of free market, libertarian tax policies like a land tax
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
runnerup 5y ago
> We’d have an entire book full of LVT modifiers, exceptions, and tax breaks in no time. Indeed, and even without these, we'd have the "LVT assessors" getting bribed or being buddy-buddy with rich landowning families. Obviously we already have that today with property taxes (not to mention permit approvals). Paraphrasing what you said elsewhere, "The interesting part is to explore the net effects." I suspect LVT would end up, overall, encouraging building more housing. It could even be sold as "lowering or eliminating taxes (on improvements to the land)". I also suspect there would be no end to the shenanigans played to manipulate LVT's. I doubt it would be much worse than today's situation, but I might be very surprised!

nwah1 5y ago

That's the real reason it "won't work." Enormous vested interests oppose it. Of course, an engaged and educated populace could overcome that. Or an enlightened elite class who realized they could boost overall wealth and technological advancement with efficient fiscal policy... short run pain for elites in exchange for long run benefits (for them and everyone else).

neilparikh 5y ago
> Enormous vested interests oppose it. > Of course, an engaged and educated populace could overcome that. The "populace" is the "vested interest" that opposes it! The majority of voters are homeowners, and thus their material interests lie in land values rising. As a concrete example of this, Prop 13 was passed by a referendum, not politicians. As a general point, I think housing is the major weak policy point for the left. The overarching theory that drives their politics is that the wealthy and powerful are the major barriers to positive change. Housing is the one area where that isn't true; the barrier to improvement is the "average" person.