6 ms·

I think you might misunderstand Georgism, or maybe I did a poor job explaining it. Georgism does not propose taxing improvements (buildings etc), only the actua

I think you might misunderstand Georgism, or maybe I did a poor job explaining it. Georgism does not propose taxing improvements (buildings etc), only the actual land. So many peoples tax burden would be decreased, and if the bank owns the land as in a mortgage, they are the ones paying the tax, not the people taking out the mortgages.

TimPC 4y ago
I get that Georgism doesn't tax the improvements. I think we have a fundamental disagreements about how mortgages work. A mortgage doesn't make the bank the owner of the land. Even if we strangely ruled that it did, that would lead to strange situations where as long as people were paying a mortgage they could live tax free on their land. But the minute that mortgage disappeared they'd be on the hook for the tax value. I don't see a good way to get to Georgism without government absorbing the mortgages as the fallout to the economy of all that debt suddenly having little in the way of assets underlying it is a huge problem. I do agree I exaggerated with my claims of $0 since the improvements on the property would have some non-zero value, but land represents the majority value of most houses and the land value would be effectively reduced to zero by the change in value from the taxation. That would be enough to put most mortgages underwater and the asset would no longer sell for the cost of the mortgage. I don't see government doing this and just saying "too bad, investors absorb the loss".
- geocon 4y ago
  This is a good point but it's not a problem with georgism per se so much as the transition to get there. There are a multitude of policies that can be used to ameliorate the change from a system based on taxation of labor and capital to that of land; a common one is giving tax credits equivalent to mortgages so that lendees are not underwater. But any shift to land value taxation will be gradual anyways, so it would be less dramatic than people imagine.
- pyradius 4y ago
  These are not show-stoppers, nor are they something that Georgists have failed to consider. "Another basis on which it is argued that greatly increased taxes on land are infeasible is that if land values were to fall precipitously, the financial system would collapse. It is true that many properties have mortgages that would exceed the value of the property if land taxes were increased significantly. This makes it necessary to think carefully about who should absorb the decline in aggregate asset value that would accompany a significant shift toward taxing land. Nevertheless, it is possible to plan for a restructured financial system that would have shed its dependence on land as collateral." http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Tideman_CTL.html#I._Taxing_Land_as_Ethics_and_Efficiency http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Tideman_CTL.html#I._Taxing... "Furthermore, as we discuss in more detail in our paper, the number of net winners from this reform would far exceed the number of net losers, who, if necessary, could be exempted or compensated at little budgetary cost. The winners would even include almost all of the very rich, who not only hold the vast majority of US land but who as a rule are also very well diversified, with land only accounting for a small share of their portfolios. They would benefit greatly from the countervailing cuts in labour and capital income taxes." https://voxeu.org/article/post-corona-balanced-budget-fiscal-stimulus-case-shifting-taxes-land https://voxeu.org/article/post-corona-balanced-budget-fiscal... "It came as a quite natural development that also the question of incorporating these ideas into Danish Law was raised. From the very beginning, Jakob E. Lange was convinced that the problem of indebtedness, especially the mortgage debts, must be solved when the full Land Rent, or Ground Duty (in Danish "Grundskyld") were to be collected for a public revenue. When in 1889 Henry George was on a speaking tour in England, Jakob E. Lange made use of the opportunity and went to England to meet him and to discuss the problem with him. The memoirs of Jakob E. Lange relate that Henry George completely accepted his standpoint; an eventual full Ground Rent which were to exceed the present property taxes ought to be proportioned between the title owner and the mortgage holder. This agreement between Henry George and Jacob E. Lange is also found expressed in the later correspondance between the two." https://cooperative-individualism.org/bille-frank_danish-american-georgist-1964.htm https://cooperative-individualism.org/bille-frank_danish-ame...
  - TimPC 4y ago
    Tideman's proposal is for the costs to the system to be absorbed by the current holders of property. As a first approximation, people would continue to hold title to the land to which they now hold title, and would continue to owe whatever money they now owe. But compensation could be sought on a case-by-case basis, by individuals who stood to bear the costs of the moral accident disproportionately and did not have substantial assets. Any financial institutional whose continued existence was threatened by the transition would be bailed out in exchange for a significant fraction of its equity. The costs of the compensation would be paid by a capital levy. I don't think this proposal is feasible. Many people owe more than their entire net worth on their primary residence. The plan is to tax land to the point that the value of land for that residence goes to zero leaving only the value of the structure on that land. The structure value is often a small fraction of the total current value of the home. This puts people sizeably underwater and would result in a fair number of people forcibly vacated from their homes as banks sold the structures to pay the mortgages. The bailouts of various financial institutions would be expensive, as would the system shocks from the various losers on the mortgage debt. Lastly, many people in old age sell their homes to pay for living in a nursing home until they die. This option would become infeasible if we drastically reduce the value of their homes and given their old age they would have no viable alternative to generate alternate capital. His proposed solution to this is a vague and nebulous "case-by-case" compensation for disproportionate costs without adequate assets. Depending on your definition of inadequate assets and disproportionate costs the total cost of this compensation can range from nearly $0 to the vast majority of all current property values. Keep in mind that a sizeable percentage of the population owns a single family residence that is a disproportionate portion of their net worth and generally factors into their retirement plans. I'd argue that every such individual is disproportionately impacted and does not have adequate assets. Zillow estimates the total residential property market in the US at $33.6 trillion dollars. I can't find good statistics for single family owners vs landlords but it's easy to assume that close to 50% of the market will be situations I described. This makes it quite possible for the homeowner compensation to be in the area of $16.8 trillion dollars. Similarly, mortgage debt is often held by pension funds that would struggle to pay their pensions out if that wealth suddenly evaporated or was vastly reduced due to people abandoning their homes. The current US residential mortgage market is $17.6 trillion dollars. Assuming half of this qualified for hardship we'd have $8.8 trillion dollars of subsidies. There are other institutions and individuals adversely effected and a program to adequately compensate them all may well cost as much as the current US debt which is currently $30.5 trillion dollars. I think Tideman vastly understates the problem. The introduction of LVT would arguably be the largest wealth transfer within a nation in human history and by his own admission mostly transfers wealth from the old to the young. It has sizeable risk of transferring wealth people can't spare, particularly transferring wealth away from those no longer work and cannot easily generate new wealth.
- pydry 4y ago
  The government already backstops most residential mortgages through freddie/fannie. Absorbing the losses and taking in LVT instead of mortgage payments will be nothing more than an accounting difference for many mortgages (e.g. say, some pension funds). Some land owners should have to eat losses. Thats the whole point. If you live on a portfolio of land inherited through your 15th century duke great grand uncle you should be getting a job at McDonalds rather than living off the labor of others. The problem is less technical and more political. Try to deprive large scale land holders of their property and they will bankroll a fascist uprising and launch a coup while foreign leaders in hock to property owners elsewhere will back the coup and enact punishing sanctions to prevent it from being seen to work. It'll happen one day probably but the transition will be bloody and violent as it always has been when land is redistributed.
  - TimPC 4y ago
    I think the portion of land owners in the US who inherited their land once is smaller than you might think. The portion who own property through a chain of inheritances going back to the 15th century is small enough to be virtually non-existent. It’s all well and good to say some land owners will have to eat losses. Which land owners? How severe losses? The fact of the matter is that expensive housing in major cities has forced a substantial portion of the middle class to misallocate their portfolios and put far too large a percentage of their funds into real estate in order to have a primary residence. If you feel this group should eat losses without compensation you’re basically saying the government should financially doom them. More broadly it’s not uncommon to see a house in many neighborhoods become 50+% of a retirement plan. Cratering the value of homes without compensation dooms many people to less than half the standard of living they were expecting in retirement. I agree with you that the transition you want would have to be bloody and violent. It would also have to be authoritarian. Simply put the groups you want to impose huge financial penalties on will oppose you and without them you lack the votes to pass this democratically.
TimPC 4y ago
Total Federal US Tax Revenues in 2021: $4.05 trillion Total US Mortgages in 2021: $17.1 trillion Once you add the taxes for other jurisdictions of government I can see taxes reaching 30% of total mortgage value. It's fairly clear to me that owning land is extremely expensive in a Georgist society that needs to generate the levels of taxation that fund current government. If land value tax replaces income tax it needs to be fairly large, taking over 20% of mortgage value for just federal costs. Some number of homes are owned outright and no longer have mortgages so the mortgage number may be a bit misleading. If we account for this we might get to a level that suggests 10% of mortgage value in taxes federally, raising to 15% of mortgage value when accounting for other levels of government. Such numbers suggest you'd need to be able to pay for your current property with an 8-year mortgage in order to pay the Georgist taxes on it. I think a modern society that kept existing levels of government spending would see widespread downgrades in housing quality in a Georgist society.
- TimPC 4y ago
  To be clear I'm not saying that Georgist taxes are based on the mortgage value I know they are not. I'm comparing the two quantities to establish a rough estimation of how expensive property in a Georgist society that provided a similar level of services would be. If government needed to generate a certain amount of tax revenue comparable to current tax revenue they likely need to charge homeowners an average tax on their unimproved land value that would roughly amount to 15+% of the value of the mortgage, across all levels of government.
  - geocon 4y ago
    Except that's not how Georgist tax structure is decided, it is 100% of the land's rental value. If you want a good overview I recommend this exhaustive and data-heavy series of articles: https://gameofrent.com/content/progress-and-poverty-review https://gameofrent.com/content/progress-and-poverty-review
    - TimPC 4y ago
      Okay some things don't add up. You can't have a Georgist tax as a single revenue source for the government and calculate it off something other than what the government needs for revenue. Either you calculate the Georgist tax rate on the unimproved land value, you add other taxes to government or you slash and burn through government spending to deal with the capped revenue. It's living in fantasy land to say Georgist land value taxes, calculated in precise accordance with this metric and not adjusted upward or downward by revenue needs will be a single source of revenue for all levels of government.
skybrian 4y ago
Uh, you might want to learn about tax incidence. If the bank pays the tax, why wouldn't they pass it on to the mortgage holder in the form of higher interest rates or other fees? There are exceptions when businesses are investing for growth and expenses are paid by investors, but normally no business is going to agree to a contract where they lose money. The money to pay expenses comes from customers.
- brightly-salty 4y ago
  Yeah, I think I misunderstood both the above point and who owns the property in a mortgage. Essentially I think that the land value of the property, which is used in calculation of the property, would go to zero no matter who is paying the tax, reducing mortgages by an equivalent amount if the individual is in charge of paying it, or raising mortgage rates by an equivalent amount if the bank is responsible. Either way it does come out of the individual’s pocket, but mortgages don’t necessarily raise their prices.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > If the bank pays the tax, why wouldn't they pass it on to the mortgage holder in the form of higher interest rates or other fees? Because land has an inelastic supply, and therefore its value is driven entirely by demand. Banks already charge as high an interest rate as they can get away with (i.e. one commensurate with the buyer's credit rating and the value of the land); trying to raise it to account for LVT would immediately backfire due to the resulting profit loss (in this case, from people being less willing to take out such mortgages).
  - skybrian 4y ago
    This is confused. If expenses are higher than revenue then there is no profit in the deal. And then, not making the loan is the bank's best choice.
    - TimPC 4y ago
      I think the problem is not with new loans though. As property value is reduced to structure value in the new system, many individuals will be able to own property without mortgages at all given the far lower cost of doing so. Some may still need mortgages and banks will have to provide a viable vehicle for doing so for the fraction of the population that needs them. The bigger issue is what happens to current mortgages. If I paid 25% down on a 1.5 million property and have paid my mortgage down further so that it's now sitting at $1 million and the value of my land is $1.25 million and the value of my house is $250,000 when the government adopts Georgist policies the value of my land goes to $0 which means my property is now worth $250,000 and I owe $1 million on it. I'm obviously going to walk away from the loan so the debt holder for my mortgage gets an asset worth $250,000 instead of the $1 million of money they were owed, a loss of $750,000. I also lose the $500,000 I had build up in my home since I walked away entirely.
anamax 4y ago
> if the bank owns the land as in a mortgage In the US at least, mortgages are on both the land and the buildings. Getting easy details like this wrong suggest that you don't actually understand how property works. I get that you have a theory with properties that you and some equations, but that doesn't imply that your equations accurately reflect reality. As the saying goes, reality has a surprising amount of detail.
- brightly-salty 4y ago
  I do understand that mortgages are on both the land and the buildings. We were talking about land only though. It is irrelevant to the question of who pays the land value tax that the mortgage also includes the buildings.
  - anamax 4y ago
    "Who pays" was relevant when the claim was that banks holding mortgages would pay. Let's review: "if the bank owns the land as in a mortgage, they are the ones paying the tax, not the people taking out the mortgages." You don't understand mortgages in a way that is essential to your argument. Banks holding mortgages don't own the property. At most, they own the right to grab the property if they're not paid, which is a very different thing.
    - brightly-salty 4y ago
      I will admit that I misunderstand TimPC’s point about people having to pay the land value tax in addition to the mortgage; I misunderstood mortgages in terms of who really owns the land. But the point still stands. If the land value tax is paid by the homeowner, the sales price of the land is zero (under a 100% LVT), so the mortgage rates are lowered by an equivalent amount. So there is no additional burden upon the homeowner. If we flip the model and say the bank owns the land, they will pay the land value tax until it is paid off. In this case also, the sales price also drops to zero so the mortgage just incorporates the land value tax and the building payment. In all possible arrangements, there is no additional burden on the homeowner until the mortgage is paid off.

TimPC 4y ago

I get that Georgism doesn't tax the improvements. I think we have a fundamental disagreements about how mortgages work. A mortgage doesn't make the bank the owner of the land. Even if we strangely ruled that it did, that would lead to strange situations where as long as people were paying a mortgage they could live tax free on their land. But the minute that mortgage disappeared they'd be on the hook for the tax value. I don't see a good way to get to Georgism without government absorbing the mortgages as the fallout to the economy of all that debt suddenly having little in the way of assets underlying it is a huge problem. I do agree I exaggerated with my claims of $0 since the improvements on the property would have some non-zero value, but land represents the majority value of most houses and the land value would be effectively reduced to zero by the change in value from the taxation. That would be enough to put most mortgages underwater and the asset would no longer sell for the cost of the mortgage. I don't see government doing this and just saying "too bad, investors absorb the loss".

geocon 4y ago
This is a good point but it's not a problem with georgism per se so much as the transition to get there. There are a multitude of policies that can be used to ameliorate the change from a system based on taxation of labor and capital to that of land; a common one is giving tax credits equivalent to mortgages so that lendees are not underwater. But any shift to land value taxation will be gradual anyways, so it would be less dramatic than people imagine.
pyradius 4y ago
These are not show-stoppers, nor are they something that Georgists have failed to consider. "Another basis on which it is argued that greatly increased taxes on land are infeasible is that if land values were to fall precipitously, the financial system would collapse. It is true that many properties have mortgages that would exceed the value of the property if land taxes were increased significantly. This makes it necessary to think carefully about who should absorb the decline in aggregate asset value that would accompany a significant shift toward taxing land. Nevertheless, it is possible to plan for a restructured financial system that would have shed its dependence on land as collateral." http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Tideman_CTL.html#I._Taxing_Land_as_Ethics_and_Efficiency http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Tideman_CTL.html#I._Taxing... "Furthermore, as we discuss in more detail in our paper, the number of net winners from this reform would far exceed the number of net losers, who, if necessary, could be exempted or compensated at little budgetary cost. The winners would even include almost all of the very rich, who not only hold the vast majority of US land but who as a rule are also very well diversified, with land only accounting for a small share of their portfolios. They would benefit greatly from the countervailing cuts in labour and capital income taxes." https://voxeu.org/article/post-corona-balanced-budget-fiscal-stimulus-case-shifting-taxes-land https://voxeu.org/article/post-corona-balanced-budget-fiscal... "It came as a quite natural development that also the question of incorporating these ideas into Danish Law was raised. From the very beginning, Jakob E. Lange was convinced that the problem of indebtedness, especially the mortgage debts, must be solved when the full Land Rent, or Ground Duty (in Danish "Grundskyld") were to be collected for a public revenue. When in 1889 Henry George was on a speaking tour in England, Jakob E. Lange made use of the opportunity and went to England to meet him and to discuss the problem with him. The memoirs of Jakob E. Lange relate that Henry George completely accepted his standpoint; an eventual full Ground Rent which were to exceed the present property taxes ought to be proportioned between the title owner and the mortgage holder. This agreement between Henry George and Jacob E. Lange is also found expressed in the later correspondance between the two." https://cooperative-individualism.org/bille-frank_danish-american-georgist-1964.htm https://cooperative-individualism.org/bille-frank_danish-ame...
- TimPC 4y ago
  Tideman's proposal is for the costs to the system to be absorbed by the current holders of property. As a first approximation, people would continue to hold title to the land to which they now hold title, and would continue to owe whatever money they now owe. But compensation could be sought on a case-by-case basis, by individuals who stood to bear the costs of the moral accident disproportionately and did not have substantial assets. Any financial institutional whose continued existence was threatened by the transition would be bailed out in exchange for a significant fraction of its equity. The costs of the compensation would be paid by a capital levy. I don't think this proposal is feasible. Many people owe more than their entire net worth on their primary residence. The plan is to tax land to the point that the value of land for that residence goes to zero leaving only the value of the structure on that land. The structure value is often a small fraction of the total current value of the home. This puts people sizeably underwater and would result in a fair number of people forcibly vacated from their homes as banks sold the structures to pay the mortgages. The bailouts of various financial institutions would be expensive, as would the system shocks from the various losers on the mortgage debt. Lastly, many people in old age sell their homes to pay for living in a nursing home until they die. This option would become infeasible if we drastically reduce the value of their homes and given their old age they would have no viable alternative to generate alternate capital. His proposed solution to this is a vague and nebulous "case-by-case" compensation for disproportionate costs without adequate assets. Depending on your definition of inadequate assets and disproportionate costs the total cost of this compensation can range from nearly $0 to the vast majority of all current property values. Keep in mind that a sizeable percentage of the population owns a single family residence that is a disproportionate portion of their net worth and generally factors into their retirement plans. I'd argue that every such individual is disproportionately impacted and does not have adequate assets. Zillow estimates the total residential property market in the US at $33.6 trillion dollars. I can't find good statistics for single family owners vs landlords but it's easy to assume that close to 50% of the market will be situations I described. This makes it quite possible for the homeowner compensation to be in the area of $16.8 trillion dollars. Similarly, mortgage debt is often held by pension funds that would struggle to pay their pensions out if that wealth suddenly evaporated or was vastly reduced due to people abandoning their homes. The current US residential mortgage market is $17.6 trillion dollars. Assuming half of this qualified for hardship we'd have $8.8 trillion dollars of subsidies. There are other institutions and individuals adversely effected and a program to adequately compensate them all may well cost as much as the current US debt which is currently $30.5 trillion dollars. I think Tideman vastly understates the problem. The introduction of LVT would arguably be the largest wealth transfer within a nation in human history and by his own admission mostly transfers wealth from the old to the young. It has sizeable risk of transferring wealth people can't spare, particularly transferring wealth away from those no longer work and cannot easily generate new wealth.
pydry 4y ago
The government already backstops most residential mortgages through freddie/fannie. Absorbing the losses and taking in LVT instead of mortgage payments will be nothing more than an accounting difference for many mortgages (e.g. say, some pension funds). Some land owners should have to eat losses. Thats the whole point. If you live on a portfolio of land inherited through your 15th century duke great grand uncle you should be getting a job at McDonalds rather than living off the labor of others. The problem is less technical and more political. Try to deprive large scale land holders of their property and they will bankroll a fascist uprising and launch a coup while foreign leaders in hock to property owners elsewhere will back the coup and enact punishing sanctions to prevent it from being seen to work. It'll happen one day probably but the transition will be bloody and violent as it always has been when land is redistributed.
- TimPC 4y ago
  I think the portion of land owners in the US who inherited their land once is smaller than you might think. The portion who own property through a chain of inheritances going back to the 15th century is small enough to be virtually non-existent. It’s all well and good to say some land owners will have to eat losses. Which land owners? How severe losses? The fact of the matter is that expensive housing in major cities has forced a substantial portion of the middle class to misallocate their portfolios and put far too large a percentage of their funds into real estate in order to have a primary residence. If you feel this group should eat losses without compensation you’re basically saying the government should financially doom them. More broadly it’s not uncommon to see a house in many neighborhoods become 50+% of a retirement plan. Cratering the value of homes without compensation dooms many people to less than half the standard of living they were expecting in retirement. I agree with you that the transition you want would have to be bloody and violent. It would also have to be authoritarian. Simply put the groups you want to impose huge financial penalties on will oppose you and without them you lack the votes to pass this democratically.

TimPC 4y ago

Total Federal US Tax Revenues in 2021: $4.05 trillion Total US Mortgages in 2021: $17.1 trillion Once you add the taxes for other jurisdictions of government I can see taxes reaching 30% of total mortgage value. It's fairly clear to me that owning land is extremely expensive in a Georgist society that needs to generate the levels of taxation that fund current government. If land value tax replaces income tax it needs to be fairly large, taking over 20% of mortgage value for just federal costs. Some number of homes are owned outright and no longer have mortgages so the mortgage number may be a bit misleading. If we account for this we might get to a level that suggests 10% of mortgage value in taxes federally, raising to 15% of mortgage value when accounting for other levels of government. Such numbers suggest you'd need to be able to pay for your current property with an 8-year mortgage in order to pay the Georgist taxes on it. I think a modern society that kept existing levels of government spending would see widespread downgrades in housing quality in a Georgist society.

TimPC 4y ago
To be clear I'm not saying that Georgist taxes are based on the mortgage value I know they are not. I'm comparing the two quantities to establish a rough estimation of how expensive property in a Georgist society that provided a similar level of services would be. If government needed to generate a certain amount of tax revenue comparable to current tax revenue they likely need to charge homeowners an average tax on their unimproved land value that would roughly amount to 15+% of the value of the mortgage, across all levels of government.
- geocon 4y ago
  Except that's not how Georgist tax structure is decided, it is 100% of the land's rental value. If you want a good overview I recommend this exhaustive and data-heavy series of articles: https://gameofrent.com/content/progress-and-poverty-review https://gameofrent.com/content/progress-and-poverty-review
  - TimPC 4y ago
    Okay some things don't add up. You can't have a Georgist tax as a single revenue source for the government and calculate it off something other than what the government needs for revenue. Either you calculate the Georgist tax rate on the unimproved land value, you add other taxes to government or you slash and burn through government spending to deal with the capped revenue. It's living in fantasy land to say Georgist land value taxes, calculated in precise accordance with this metric and not adjusted upward or downward by revenue needs will be a single source of revenue for all levels of government.

skybrian 4y ago

Uh, you might want to learn about tax incidence. If the bank pays the tax, why wouldn't they pass it on to the mortgage holder in the form of higher interest rates or other fees? There are exceptions when businesses are investing for growth and expenses are paid by investors, but normally no business is going to agree to a contract where they lose money. The money to pay expenses comes from customers.

brightly-salty 4y ago
Yeah, I think I misunderstood both the above point and who owns the property in a mortgage. Essentially I think that the land value of the property, which is used in calculation of the property, would go to zero no matter who is paying the tax, reducing mortgages by an equivalent amount if the individual is in charge of paying it, or raising mortgage rates by an equivalent amount if the bank is responsible. Either way it does come out of the individual’s pocket, but mortgages don’t necessarily raise their prices.
yellowapple 4y ago
> If the bank pays the tax, why wouldn't they pass it on to the mortgage holder in the form of higher interest rates or other fees? Because land has an inelastic supply, and therefore its value is driven entirely by demand. Banks already charge as high an interest rate as they can get away with (i.e. one commensurate with the buyer's credit rating and the value of the land); trying to raise it to account for LVT would immediately backfire due to the resulting profit loss (in this case, from people being less willing to take out such mortgages).
- skybrian 4y ago
  This is confused. If expenses are higher than revenue then there is no profit in the deal. And then, not making the loan is the bank's best choice.
  - TimPC 4y ago
    I think the problem is not with new loans though. As property value is reduced to structure value in the new system, many individuals will be able to own property without mortgages at all given the far lower cost of doing so. Some may still need mortgages and banks will have to provide a viable vehicle for doing so for the fraction of the population that needs them. The bigger issue is what happens to current mortgages. If I paid 25% down on a 1.5 million property and have paid my mortgage down further so that it's now sitting at $1 million and the value of my land is $1.25 million and the value of my house is $250,000 when the government adopts Georgist policies the value of my land goes to $0 which means my property is now worth $250,000 and I owe $1 million on it. I'm obviously going to walk away from the loan so the debt holder for my mortgage gets an asset worth $250,000 instead of the $1 million of money they were owed, a loss of $750,000. I also lose the $500,000 I had build up in my home since I walked away entirely.

anamax 4y ago

> if the bank owns the land as in a mortgage In the US at least, mortgages are on both the land and the buildings. Getting easy details like this wrong suggest that you don't actually understand how property works. I get that you have a theory with properties that you and some equations, but that doesn't imply that your equations accurately reflect reality. As the saying goes, reality has a surprising amount of detail.

brightly-salty 4y ago
I do understand that mortgages are on both the land and the buildings. We were talking about land only though. It is irrelevant to the question of who pays the land value tax that the mortgage also includes the buildings.
- anamax 4y ago
  "Who pays" was relevant when the claim was that banks holding mortgages would pay. Let's review: "if the bank owns the land as in a mortgage, they are the ones paying the tax, not the people taking out the mortgages." You don't understand mortgages in a way that is essential to your argument. Banks holding mortgages don't own the property. At most, they own the right to grab the property if they're not paid, which is a very different thing.
  - brightly-salty 4y ago
    I will admit that I misunderstand TimPC’s point about people having to pay the land value tax in addition to the mortgage; I misunderstood mortgages in terms of who really owns the land. But the point still stands. If the land value tax is paid by the homeowner, the sales price of the land is zero (under a 100% LVT), so the mortgage rates are lowered by an equivalent amount. So there is no additional burden upon the homeowner. If we flip the model and say the bank owns the land, they will pay the land value tax until it is paid off. In this case also, the sales price also drops to zero so the mortgage just incorporates the land value tax and the building payment. In all possible arrangements, there is no additional burden on the homeowner until the mortgage is paid off.