3 ms·

Tax on land goes against the right to property. If all you have is illiquid land, how are you supposed to pay? You would be forced to sell which ends up being a

Tax on land goes against the right to property. If all you have is illiquid land, how are you supposed to pay? You would be forced to sell which ends up being an indirect expropriation.

why_only_15 5y ago
Property taxes already exist in many states, so this isn't fundamentally different.
reducesuffering 5y ago
Atleast deferred payments due on sale. That's the actual feasible political solution to California's prop 13 conundrum. Ok, it's impossible to raise effective property taxes to 1% (which causes some of the insane housing prices due to low carrying costs for speculation), because it would reduce the ability for some retirees to pay because they didn't budget for it, and they'll always vote against it. Then at least defer those taxes until time of sale.
bluquark 5y ago
One of the key arguments in favor of enforcing private property rights when this idea was taking shape during the Enlightenment is that they are a powerful incentive to develop. So an additional incentive to either generate revenue from the land, or sell to someone who is willing to, is very much in the spirit of modern property rights.
- SnowHill9902 5y ago
  Developed land does not have to bring revenue (or even profit). May I not have just an illiquid house on a plot of land and no other assets?
  - chii 5y ago
    > I not have just an illiquid house if you live in it, then a land value tax is equivalent to the state charging you a tax on the imputed rent you receive from owning your own abode. If you don't live in it, but rent it out, then that's self explanatory - you use the rental income to pay the tax. If you don't rent it out, then it's your loss as you have to pay the tax out of pocket. This means you will need to rent it out.
bigtex88 5y ago
You take a loan out on the value of the land, and use that to pay the taxes. Similar to what countless people today do with their home equity.

Tax on land goes against the right to property. If all you have is illiquid land, how are you supposed to pay? You would be forced to sell which ends up being an indirect expropriation.

why_only_15 5y ago

Property taxes already exist in many states, so this isn't fundamentally different.

reducesuffering 5y ago

Atleast deferred payments due on sale. That's the actual feasible political solution to California's prop 13 conundrum. Ok, it's impossible to raise effective property taxes to 1% (which causes some of the insane housing prices due to low carrying costs for speculation), because it would reduce the ability for some retirees to pay because they didn't budget for it, and they'll always vote against it. Then at least defer those taxes until time of sale.

bluquark 5y ago

One of the key arguments in favor of enforcing private property rights when this idea was taking shape during the Enlightenment is that they are a powerful incentive to develop. So an additional incentive to either generate revenue from the land, or sell to someone who is willing to, is very much in the spirit of modern property rights.

SnowHill9902 5y ago
Developed land does not have to bring revenue (or even profit). May I not have just an illiquid house on a plot of land and no other assets?
- chii 5y ago
  > I not have just an illiquid house if you live in it, then a land value tax is equivalent to the state charging you a tax on the imputed rent you receive from owning your own abode. If you don't live in it, but rent it out, then that's self explanatory - you use the rental income to pay the tax. If you don't rent it out, then it's your loss as you have to pay the tax out of pocket. This means you will need to rent it out.

bigtex88 5y ago

You take a loan out on the value of the land, and use that to pay the taxes. Similar to what countless people today do with their home equity.