3 ms·
If you tax land value, but not development value, that incentivizes greatest productive use of land, and penalizes unproductive use of land. It incentivizes mu
by Nevermark 4y ago
If you tax land value, but not development value, that incentivizes greatest productive use of land, and penalizes unproductive use of land.
It incentivizes multi-unit construction, as the more productive the land is, the less onerous the land taxes become. (Wheres currently, developing land normally increases the property tax.)
Increasing units per land both provides more housing, and reduces the tax/renter pass through.
It disincentivizes holding unproductive land as an investment, since unproductive land gets taxed as highly as productive land.
Removing the dysfunctional use of land as a store of value asset, would greatly reduce land and rent prices.
Removing the store of value aspect, would also better align landlords incentives with their renters. As their business model would now purely revolve around their paying customers, without the subsidy of land prices going up due to investment mania. And improving rental properties would be cheaper, without the tax increases that entails today.
All these benefits probably accrue from good economic alignment, because a land tax, instead of total property value tax, reflects that it is land, not its development, which is the finite resource.
Land is finite, yet we all absolutely need land, along with food, air, and water. (Finite in a soft way, given different land is more or less usable). We only "own" land in passing. So those holding it shouldn't be lightly excluding better uses of an absolutely necessary resource.
Land taxes are also morally well aligned. It is land (not development) that is a joint inheritance to us all. Land owners share a bit of that inheritance value with all of us, while still being allowed to manage it according to self-interest, opportunity and competition.
Finally, property tax is part land tax, part wealth (development value) tax. Only taxing land eliminates a wealth tax. Upgrading your home won't increase your taxes.
The humanitarian and economic benefits of properly aligned land taxes would directly accrue to everyone in society from the bottom to the top.
It would improve overall economic efficiency and equality.
It would eliminate a lot of local and national political conflicts.
- carlosjobim 4y agoThis would be a disaster for the ruling class. If there was any risk of such a tax reform coming to pass, they would nuke the whole country long before any such thing could happen.
- axus 4y agoHow much of the "ruling class" actually get most of their power from the land they control? I get that price of property affects a lot of people, but I also think the "landlords" are a fraction of the political and economic power.
- pixl97 4y agoYou seem to be forgetting that over here in the US we're all a bunch of "temporarily depressed millionaires", the wealthy landowners have and will continue to convince the voting public that any of the above rules would be detrimental to the not currently a millionaire class, and such rules should be prevented at all costs, less the dreams of them being rich will be permanently dashed.