4 ms·

But surely we can deduce that property taxes are _more_ immoral than a land value tax. With both, you do have to pay more when the wealthy decide your area is v

But surely we can deduce that property taxes are _more_ immoral than a land value tax. With both, you do have to pay more when the wealthy decide your area is valuable. (Leave aside for the moment the argument that some Georgists will argue this is less likely in a world with LVT). But only with property tax are you taxed _more_ when you spend your own money to improve your own property. Property tax directly disincentivizes making the most of your own land, because it taxes the improvements to it. Land Value Tax is like taking property tax and removing the worst element of it. At least personally I think it moves the needle from "a very bad idea" to more in the realm of a necessary evil.

skybrian 4y ago
Okay, but don't most people who like Land Value Tax want property taxes to go up, overall? As in, governments will collect more revenue? It's difficult to see how all the radical changes they promise would happen if property tax rates were lowered on average. That would tend to let people keep owning the property they have.
- Jensson 4y ago
  No, it is enough that massively expanding your property wont increase your tax. That way you can build a lot more homes on your land and therefore become a lot richer without paying more taxes. There is no reason for the tax to be higher overall than before, its just what it incentivises. You might not take this opportunity but others will. Some people might pay more tax, if lets say your area develops into a dense city core over 40 years your land will now be worth many millions, at that point your tax would be comparable to the skyscrapers around you. Which is reasonable since you are hurting the progress of the city at that point, and if you sell your property you will have so much money that you can easily move slightly outside the boundaries of the city core. But in most cases you wont strike it rich with your land getting worth that much.
  - skybrian 4y ago
    This doesn't make sense. The higher the tax the more the (negative) incentive. Low tax means low incentive. Let's say someone has a house in a gentrifying area. The house isn't taxed but the land is, and property values are rising. Encouraging density means making it financially difficult for them to stay there, so they will sell to a developer. If the tax doesn't do that, LVT doesn't provide enough incentive to discourage speculation. LVT advocates need to own up to what they're trying to do. There will be winners and losers. Someone with little income (retired) and property in a desirable location is going to lose. And this is exactly the sort of thing that got Prop 13 passed in California. Homeowners really don't like it when their property tax goes up.
    - Jensson 4y ago
      For most people the taxes would stay the same. It would increase the tax for some and reduce the tax for others, there is no reason to increase the tax overall. Can even keep prop 13, the important part is that improving the land shouldn't increase your tax as that discourages building things and encourages wasteful usage of that land like huge parking lots for a tiny shop etc. Land value tax would force those companies to sell or actually use it better, which is a good thing, they can't just sit on mostly unimproved land hoping the value goes up with time while paying almost nothing.
    - BirdieNZ 4y ago
      > Someone with little income (retired) and property in a desirable location is going to lose. Most advocates of a higher LVT also advocate for a provision to defer the payment of the tax until sale of the property for pensioners.
    - imtringued 4y ago
      LVT isn't meant to evict anyone, it is meant to make it cheaper to use less land and more expensive to use more land. It is like an energy efficiency policy. We aren't forcibly trashing old cars. Even a modest LVT can prevent speculation because empty plots are no longer untaxed due to low property values.
- TimPC 4y ago
  Most people who want significant increases in things like a full LVT want to use them to remove other taxes like the income tax. I haven’t met a Georgist who wants a full LVT to grow government unless you count UBI/Citizen’s Dividend as growing government.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    > … unless you count UBI/Citizen’s Dividend as growing government. You don’t? LVT supplanting all other tax would absolutely mean it’d be ruinous to use land in ways contrary to the wishes of the government body socially-engineering land-use policy.
    - TimPC 4y ago
      I think there is a substantial difference between handing money back to all civilians to compensate their rights and spending the money on specific government programs that only benefit a subset of the population.
    - imtringued 4y ago
      A citizen's dividend for land is just the democratisation of land as now every human has an equal right to a given plot of land. If they want a bigger or more valuable plot they will have to work for it. As it stands right now land ownership is just used to pass down dynastic wealth and reap economic rents (profit at the expense of someone else as opposed to earning it through work).

skybrian 4y ago

Okay, but don't most people who like Land Value Tax want property taxes to go up, overall? As in, governments will collect more revenue? It's difficult to see how all the radical changes they promise would happen if property tax rates were lowered on average. That would tend to let people keep owning the property they have.

Jensson 4y ago
No, it is enough that massively expanding your property wont increase your tax. That way you can build a lot more homes on your land and therefore become a lot richer without paying more taxes. There is no reason for the tax to be higher overall than before, its just what it incentivises. You might not take this opportunity but others will. Some people might pay more tax, if lets say your area develops into a dense city core over 40 years your land will now be worth many millions, at that point your tax would be comparable to the skyscrapers around you. Which is reasonable since you are hurting the progress of the city at that point, and if you sell your property you will have so much money that you can easily move slightly outside the boundaries of the city core. But in most cases you wont strike it rich with your land getting worth that much.
- skybrian 4y ago
  This doesn't make sense. The higher the tax the more the (negative) incentive. Low tax means low incentive. Let's say someone has a house in a gentrifying area. The house isn't taxed but the land is, and property values are rising. Encouraging density means making it financially difficult for them to stay there, so they will sell to a developer. If the tax doesn't do that, LVT doesn't provide enough incentive to discourage speculation. LVT advocates need to own up to what they're trying to do. There will be winners and losers. Someone with little income (retired) and property in a desirable location is going to lose. And this is exactly the sort of thing that got Prop 13 passed in California. Homeowners really don't like it when their property tax goes up.
  - Jensson 4y ago
    For most people the taxes would stay the same. It would increase the tax for some and reduce the tax for others, there is no reason to increase the tax overall. Can even keep prop 13, the important part is that improving the land shouldn't increase your tax as that discourages building things and encourages wasteful usage of that land like huge parking lots for a tiny shop etc. Land value tax would force those companies to sell or actually use it better, which is a good thing, they can't just sit on mostly unimproved land hoping the value goes up with time while paying almost nothing.
  - BirdieNZ 4y ago
    > Someone with little income (retired) and property in a desirable location is going to lose. Most advocates of a higher LVT also advocate for a provision to defer the payment of the tax until sale of the property for pensioners.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    LVT isn't meant to evict anyone, it is meant to make it cheaper to use less land and more expensive to use more land. It is like an energy efficiency policy. We aren't forcibly trashing old cars. Even a modest LVT can prevent speculation because empty plots are no longer untaxed due to low property values.
TimPC 4y ago
Most people who want significant increases in things like a full LVT want to use them to remove other taxes like the income tax. I haven’t met a Georgist who wants a full LVT to grow government unless you count UBI/Citizen’s Dividend as growing government.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  > … unless you count UBI/Citizen’s Dividend as growing government. You don’t? LVT supplanting all other tax would absolutely mean it’d be ruinous to use land in ways contrary to the wishes of the government body socially-engineering land-use policy.
  - TimPC 4y ago
    I think there is a substantial difference between handing money back to all civilians to compensate their rights and spending the money on specific government programs that only benefit a subset of the population.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    A citizen's dividend for land is just the democratisation of land as now every human has an equal right to a given plot of land. If they want a bigger or more valuable plot they will have to work for it. As it stands right now land ownership is just used to pass down dynastic wealth and reap economic rents (profit at the expense of someone else as opposed to earning it through work).