> public transit and the postal service Hang on, what does loss-making public infrastructure paid for by taxes have to do with the taxation of the land it sits

> public transit and the postal service Hang on, what does loss-making public infrastructure paid for by taxes have to do with the taxation of the land it sits on? If the government already pays for railway stations and parks and post offices, why would it be a problem for the government to tax itself more? I agree that there are things which have positive externalities that are not profitable in themselves. Those things already exist and the government pays for them using taxes. > A more charitable view might be that the landlord likes having a nightclub where it is. If the business owners were accepting below market rate because they wanted to keep a business there, then they're effectively spending money on charity. In that case, yes, raising taxes on them might cause them to give less. Suggesting that we leave the surplus value of land with landlords because they're going to use some of it on charitable giving, instead of to the government, is a coherent position. I'm not sure I agree with it, though. I think a small fraction of landlords will give low rents to businesses they like, but most of them will just charge tenants close to market rate. I think in that case, I'd rather give most of the surplus value to governments instead.