27 ms·

> it would however tank the value of ultra expensive land. Well it would depend on why the land is expensive. What it would do (at least in theory which I do a

> it would however tank the value of ultra expensive land. Well it would depend on why the land is expensive. What it would do (at least in theory which I do agree with) is force the expensive land to be developed for a useful economic purpose instead of just sitting there. For single-family homes and such a LVT is likely to be neutral or slightly positive b/c a lot of those homes weren't built on particularly valuable or useful land (which is why it was cheap in the first place). I really like the idea of focusing taxes on more of a "what am I actually paying for in my community" which LVT and variations of that tend to support, but it'll never happen in the US.

Retric 4y ago
LVT’s don’t cover the cost of education, roads, police, etc that scale with population. What they tax is proximity to places people want to live or resources to be extracted etc. This tends to minimize the distance people travel to work, but it’s hardly go to force a billionaire to sell land they want to keep.
- ericmay 4y ago
  It depends on the implementation, but generally it actually would cover these things.
  - Retric 4y ago
    If the land tax is identical between an apartment complex with 1,000 people and one across the street in a different school district with 10,000 people then it can’t.
    - ericmay 4y ago
      In such a case I think it wouldn’t be possible to have those two buildings be taxed exactly the same per-person because by virtue of 10,000 people living in an equivalent lot you’re demonstrating that the land value is quite high and so the 1,000 person lot would have to be adjusted significantly. You’d have to actually cram that many people onto a lot too, which means you are looking at a location like Manhattan level density in which case it’s very unlikely that a 1,000 person property isn’t paying significant land value taxes. I’m sure we can come up with contrived examples of things, but be open-minded to how things could work.
      - Retric 4y ago
        First absolute density isn’t relevant in my example as a single property could hold 10,000 garden style apartments or 1,000 single family homes etc. Anyway, it’s not that property taxes are 1:1 with population, however it does broadly correlate with density. A farmer next to a subdivision is a more extreme version of the same thing that only represents which farmer happened to sell their land. Meanwhile a farm is less value per acre than a housing development. Just as high rises represent more value per acre than garden style apartments and garden style apartments beat single family homes. Land value taxes on the other hand ignore all such differences by design. The farmer pays the same amount per acre as the subdivision next door. LVT can capture increases in value as regions develops, but those increase don’t line up with political borders.
        ericmay 4y ago
        You are mistakenly believing that LVT means that two lots of the same size are taxed the same rate.
        Retric 4y ago
        Two equivalent lots next to each other should taxed the same or very close to it. Beachfront vs non beachfront isn’t equivalent, but two random fields in Northern Virginia next to each other with similar features should be. Anyway, LVT definitely doesn’t care about what you built on the property so this distinction just doesn’t matter.
        ericmay 4y ago
        > Two equivalent lots next to each other should taxed the same or very close to it. Yes… but you can’t just look at vacant lots in abstract. If you have two lots and they are taxed the same or similarly, either the owners pay the tax, or they sell the lot because they aren’t providing enough economic value to afford the tax, or someone who has a better economic idea buys the lot to improve it. In your example of the similar lots you demonstrated this, but drew the wrong conclusion. You realize economic value from the 10,000 people on Lot A because the owner had to either improve it or sell it so that it produced economic value. > Beachfront vs non beachfront isn’t equivalent Right, which is why they’d be taxed differently… depending on other factors. L > Anyway, LVT definitely doesn’t care about what you built on the property so this distinction just doesn’t matter. That’s exactly the wrong conclusion! LVT cares more than any other tax system because the tax revenue is reflective of the economic value of the property.
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      Why would it be identical? If one's in a better school district, then that would be a good reason for one to be of greater value than the other. That the one in the other school district has sufficiently higher demand that it has ten times the residents as the complex across the street further suggests a higher land value and therefore higher LVT.
      - Retric 4y ago
        I could have just as easily said the higher population density property had a lower LVT as it’s an arbitrary choice. Perhaps the higher population density is in the worse school district as the better one. Hell the district boundaries my have changed last week specifically to shift the burden to a different school district. So sure, it’s of course possible for properties next to each other to have significantly different values per acre, but nothing says the higher density one must have a higher or lower value so let’s just assume their identical for simplicity. Any way you slice it it’s clear LVT doesn’t care about the actual population on the land.
        yellowapple 4y ago
        > nothing says the higher density one must have a higher or lower value Local population (incl. the density thereof) is arguably the driver of value, moreso than any other factor besides sheer size and maybe location (in exceptional cases, e.g. adjacent to a coastline). If you could build a store or a restaurant anywhere, then all else being equal, would you build it where there are 10,000 potential customers within walking distance or where there are merely 1,000? Likewise, are you going to move where there are lots of places to eat and shop or where there are few? Generally people want to be where other people are, and this produces a positive feedback loop between local population and demand for land; there are exceptions, of course (some people like to live away from population centers instead of in the middle of them), but they ain't numerous enough to meaningfully suppress that feedback loop.
        Retric 4y ago
        That breaks down when your dealing with properties next to each other. The surrounding area can easily dwarf the difference a single property makes here. Assuming all things where equal the lower population density one might be assessed at a higher LTV because it’s next to a higher population density and the higher population density one would be assessed lower because it’s next to a low population density one. But the actual effect depends on many factors, being next to poor people generally lowers property values etc.

Retric 4y ago

LVT’s don’t cover the cost of education, roads, police, etc that scale with population. What they tax is proximity to places people want to live or resources to be extracted etc. This tends to minimize the distance people travel to work, but it’s hardly go to force a billionaire to sell land they want to keep.

ericmay 4y ago
It depends on the implementation, but generally it actually would cover these things.
- Retric 4y ago
  If the land tax is identical between an apartment complex with 1,000 people and one across the street in a different school district with 10,000 people then it can’t.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    In such a case I think it wouldn’t be possible to have those two buildings be taxed exactly the same per-person because by virtue of 10,000 people living in an equivalent lot you’re demonstrating that the land value is quite high and so the 1,000 person lot would have to be adjusted significantly. You’d have to actually cram that many people onto a lot too, which means you are looking at a location like Manhattan level density in which case it’s very unlikely that a 1,000 person property isn’t paying significant land value taxes. I’m sure we can come up with contrived examples of things, but be open-minded to how things could work.
    - Retric 4y ago
      First absolute density isn’t relevant in my example as a single property could hold 10,000 garden style apartments or 1,000 single family homes etc. Anyway, it’s not that property taxes are 1:1 with population, however it does broadly correlate with density. A farmer next to a subdivision is a more extreme version of the same thing that only represents which farmer happened to sell their land. Meanwhile a farm is less value per acre than a housing development. Just as high rises represent more value per acre than garden style apartments and garden style apartments beat single family homes. Land value taxes on the other hand ignore all such differences by design. The farmer pays the same amount per acre as the subdivision next door. LVT can capture increases in value as regions develops, but those increase don’t line up with political borders.
      - ericmay 4y ago
        You are mistakenly believing that LVT means that two lots of the same size are taxed the same rate.
        Retric 4y ago
        Two equivalent lots next to each other should taxed the same or very close to it. Beachfront vs non beachfront isn’t equivalent, but two random fields in Northern Virginia next to each other with similar features should be. Anyway, LVT definitely doesn’t care about what you built on the property so this distinction just doesn’t matter.
        ericmay 4y ago
        > Two equivalent lots next to each other should taxed the same or very close to it. Yes… but you can’t just look at vacant lots in abstract. If you have two lots and they are taxed the same or similarly, either the owners pay the tax, or they sell the lot because they aren’t providing enough economic value to afford the tax, or someone who has a better economic idea buys the lot to improve it. In your example of the similar lots you demonstrated this, but drew the wrong conclusion. You realize economic value from the 10,000 people on Lot A because the owner had to either improve it or sell it so that it produced economic value. > Beachfront vs non beachfront isn’t equivalent Right, which is why they’d be taxed differently… depending on other factors. L > Anyway, LVT definitely doesn’t care about what you built on the property so this distinction just doesn’t matter. That’s exactly the wrong conclusion! LVT cares more than any other tax system because the tax revenue is reflective of the economic value of the property.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    Why would it be identical? If one's in a better school district, then that would be a good reason for one to be of greater value than the other. That the one in the other school district has sufficiently higher demand that it has ten times the residents as the complex across the street further suggests a higher land value and therefore higher LVT.
    - Retric 4y ago
      I could have just as easily said the higher population density property had a lower LVT as it’s an arbitrary choice. Perhaps the higher population density is in the worse school district as the better one. Hell the district boundaries my have changed last week specifically to shift the burden to a different school district. So sure, it’s of course possible for properties next to each other to have significantly different values per acre, but nothing says the higher density one must have a higher or lower value so let’s just assume their identical for simplicity. Any way you slice it it’s clear LVT doesn’t care about the actual population on the land.
      - yellowapple 4y ago
        > nothing says the higher density one must have a higher or lower value Local population (incl. the density thereof) is arguably the driver of value, moreso than any other factor besides sheer size and maybe location (in exceptional cases, e.g. adjacent to a coastline). If you could build a store or a restaurant anywhere, then all else being equal, would you build it where there are 10,000 potential customers within walking distance or where there are merely 1,000? Likewise, are you going to move where there are lots of places to eat and shop or where there are few? Generally people want to be where other people are, and this produces a positive feedback loop between local population and demand for land; there are exceptions, of course (some people like to live away from population centers instead of in the middle of them), but they ain't numerous enough to meaningfully suppress that feedback loop.
        Retric 4y ago
        That breaks down when your dealing with properties next to each other. The surrounding area can easily dwarf the difference a single property makes here. Assuming all things where equal the lower population density one might be assessed at a higher LTV because it’s next to a higher population density and the higher population density one would be assessed lower because it’s next to a low population density one. But the actual effect depends on many factors, being next to poor people generally lowers property values etc.