3 ms·

If you tear all that down, it likely would.

keiferski 3y ago
It doesn’t need to be torn down, just abandoned. The tear down process can happen decades later. See: Detroit.
thaumasiotes 3y ago
No. The concept is that you get taxed on the unimproved value of your land. So chipsa says that if you own a small plot of land in New York, you'll still pay a lot of property tax (on "unimproved value") because you're right next to the subway and that's part of the unimproved value of your land. But if you own a large plot of land, the subway is just another improvement that doesn't get counted towards the value of your land. So once you've bought the subway, the unimproved value of your land is lower than it used to be. I think it's weird to be so enthusiastic about a tax system with such fine dependence on the exact ownership structure of property. It's especially weird when the ownership structure the system is driving people toward is "a very small number of people each own truly massive quantities of land".
- thfuran 3y ago
  The unimproved value of land next to a subway stop is greater than the unimproved value of land far from the nearest subway stop regardless of who owns the subway.
  - nine_k 3y ago
    You don't get it. Imagine owning the entire subway. Then the subway system is an improvement on your land, not something adjacent to it, and should not be counted. (Yes, this would require buying most of all the five boroughs.) This is a highly unrealistic scenario though.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      You would not be taxed on the tunnels, the trains, and the stations. You would presumably be taxed on the value of the land occupied by those things, but not the things themself. Land value tax does not need to pretend that none of the improvements exist, just that the improvements are not directly taxed.
      - thaumasiotes 3y ago
        > Land value tax does need not pretend that none of the improvements exist That's precisely what land value tax must do. That is the definition of the tax. That is its only characteristic. Imagine that things happen in the other order. You buy a bunch of undeveloped land somewhere. It has some assessed land value. Now you build a city and a subway system on your land. Fifteen million people live on your land, work on your land, and commute by the subway that you dug on your land. Your land now has tremendous value. But, by definition, the land value is still the same as it was before there was anything there. The subway system didn't add to the land value. It added to the developed value.
        sokoloff 3y ago
        If you believe the land under a city of 15M people has the same value as that same amount of undeveloped land, I'm not sure how to begin with an explanation. You even slipped into your own reply: "Your land now has tremendous value."
        afiori 3y ago
        You are talking about different things. The land of a 15M people city has huge value but low unimproved value. Georgist believe that if you buy a piece of land and build value on it you should not be punished. Georgist taxation is meant to encourage individuals to develop their own land. In practice likely the taxation would apply on a lot by lot basis, so you would have to count your huge land ownership as 150 thousand small lots each with significant unimproved value. Another way to look at this is that you should tax a piece of land exactly the market value of renting that piece of land. So that the only value in owning land is the corresponding control and not the value extraction of ownership. In this formulation you would pay a lot of taxes on the thousand of hectars the city is build on but no more and no less than you can get your tenants to pay you. My main criticism of georgism is that it aggregate owneship to the rich, as you might not have the capital to make your land productive enough to cover its rent value. E.g a small bed and breakfast in a scenic location could easily be developed into a 10 story hotel has an unclear undevaloped value.
- pyrados 3y ago
  That's how externalities work. It isn't particularly a 'fine dependence' or driving people toward owning massive quantities of land. If you buy those things then you paid for them and for them to keep their value you must maintain them. If you believe you can do this at a lower price than the state, more power to you. Rent gets paid whether it is publicly collected or privately captured. The point is that when you -don't- own them but benefit from the work of others, you should pay for them. As noted in https://www.henrygeorge.org/caldes.htm https://www.henrygeorge.org/caldes.htm Edward Treadwell, the biographer of Henry Miller, the "Cattle King", noted: "for the smaller farmer irrigation districts are essential, but for the large landowners and cattlemen, they were deemed a menace. They compelled development... they transferred control from the large landholder to the populace. They invaded the liberty of action on which the land barons prospered." The Chamber of Commerce in Modesto in the same year stated, "as a result of the exemption of improvements many of the large ranches have been cut up and sold in small tracts. The new owners are cultivating these farms intensively. The population of both country and city has increased... the new system of taxation has brought great prosperity to our district. Farmers are now encouraged to improve their property. Industry and thrift are not punished by an increase in taxes." Fred Foldvary has an interesting paper called "Walt Disney World as a Rent-Funded Community" https://cooperative-individualism.org/foldvary-fred_walt-disney-world-as-a-rent-funded-community-2016-aug.pdf https://cooperative-individualism.org/foldvary-fred_walt-dis... in which he notes, "WDW obviously has had an impact on the development of Central Florida. The population in the greater Orlando area grew from 30,000 in 1965 to 450,000 in 1970 and 1.1 million in 1990. The labor force grew from 186,000 to 620,000 (Facts and Figures, 1990). With this growth, WDW has induced an increased land value in the area, but the surrounding developments in turn increase the value of its land, hence it is an open question how large the value received from external developments is, relative to the value exported to the region." There's no secret power associated with 'buying up surrounding land and public works'. The cost and benefit are proportional, paying a tax or paying for the capital costs/upkeep/maintenance are commensurate.

It doesn’t need to be torn down, just abandoned. The tear down process can happen decades later. See: Detroit.

No. The concept is that you get taxed on the unimproved value of your land. So chipsa says that if you own a small plot of land in New York, you'll still pay a lot of property tax (on "unimproved value") because you're right next to the subway and that's part of the unimproved value of your land. But if you own a large plot of land, the subway is just another improvement that doesn't get counted towards the value of your land. So once you've bought the subway, the unimproved value of your land is lower than it used to be. I think it's weird to be so enthusiastic about a tax system with such fine dependence on the exact ownership structure of property. It's especially weird when the ownership structure the system is driving people toward is "a very small number of people each own truly massive quantities of land".

thfuran 3y ago
The unimproved value of land next to a subway stop is greater than the unimproved value of land far from the nearest subway stop regardless of who owns the subway.
- nine_k 3y ago
  You don't get it. Imagine owning the entire subway. Then the subway system is an improvement on your land, not something adjacent to it, and should not be counted. (Yes, this would require buying most of all the five boroughs.) This is a highly unrealistic scenario though.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    You would not be taxed on the tunnels, the trains, and the stations. You would presumably be taxed on the value of the land occupied by those things, but not the things themself. Land value tax does not need to pretend that none of the improvements exist, just that the improvements are not directly taxed.
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      > Land value tax does need not pretend that none of the improvements exist That's precisely what land value tax must do. That is the definition of the tax. That is its only characteristic. Imagine that things happen in the other order. You buy a bunch of undeveloped land somewhere. It has some assessed land value. Now you build a city and a subway system on your land. Fifteen million people live on your land, work on your land, and commute by the subway that you dug on your land. Your land now has tremendous value. But, by definition, the land value is still the same as it was before there was anything there. The subway system didn't add to the land value. It added to the developed value.
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        If you believe the land under a city of 15M people has the same value as that same amount of undeveloped land, I'm not sure how to begin with an explanation. You even slipped into your own reply: "Your land now has tremendous value."
        afiori 3y ago
        You are talking about different things. The land of a 15M people city has huge value but low unimproved value. Georgist believe that if you buy a piece of land and build value on it you should not be punished. Georgist taxation is meant to encourage individuals to develop their own land. In practice likely the taxation would apply on a lot by lot basis, so you would have to count your huge land ownership as 150 thousand small lots each with significant unimproved value. Another way to look at this is that you should tax a piece of land exactly the market value of renting that piece of land. So that the only value in owning land is the corresponding control and not the value extraction of ownership. In this formulation you would pay a lot of taxes on the thousand of hectars the city is build on but no more and no less than you can get your tenants to pay you. My main criticism of georgism is that it aggregate owneship to the rich, as you might not have the capital to make your land productive enough to cover its rent value. E.g a small bed and breakfast in a scenic location could easily be developed into a 10 story hotel has an unclear undevaloped value.
pyrados 3y ago
That's how externalities work. It isn't particularly a 'fine dependence' or driving people toward owning massive quantities of land. If you buy those things then you paid for them and for them to keep their value you must maintain them. If you believe you can do this at a lower price than the state, more power to you. Rent gets paid whether it is publicly collected or privately captured. The point is that when you -don't- own them but benefit from the work of others, you should pay for them. As noted in https://www.henrygeorge.org/caldes.htm https://www.henrygeorge.org/caldes.htm Edward Treadwell, the biographer of Henry Miller, the "Cattle King", noted: "for the smaller farmer irrigation districts are essential, but for the large landowners and cattlemen, they were deemed a menace. They compelled development... they transferred control from the large landholder to the populace. They invaded the liberty of action on which the land barons prospered." The Chamber of Commerce in Modesto in the same year stated, "as a result of the exemption of improvements many of the large ranches have been cut up and sold in small tracts. The new owners are cultivating these farms intensively. The population of both country and city has increased... the new system of taxation has brought great prosperity to our district. Farmers are now encouraged to improve their property. Industry and thrift are not punished by an increase in taxes." Fred Foldvary has an interesting paper called "Walt Disney World as a Rent-Funded Community" https://cooperative-individualism.org/foldvary-fred_walt-disney-world-as-a-rent-funded-community-2016-aug.pdf https://cooperative-individualism.org/foldvary-fred_walt-dis... in which he notes, "WDW obviously has had an impact on the development of Central Florida. The population in the greater Orlando area grew from 30,000 in 1965 to 450,000 in 1970 and 1.1 million in 1990. The labor force grew from 186,000 to 620,000 (Facts and Figures, 1990). With this growth, WDW has induced an increased land value in the area, but the surrounding developments in turn increase the value of its land, hence it is an open question how large the value received from external developments is, relative to the value exported to the region." There's no secret power associated with 'buying up surrounding land and public works'. The cost and benefit are proportional, paying a tax or paying for the capital costs/upkeep/maintenance are commensurate.