4 ms·

>But, by definition, the land value is still the same as it was before there was anything there. No, it's massively higher. Just go look at the value of an emp

>But, by definition, the land value is still the same as it was before there was anything there. No, it's massively higher. Just go look at the value of an empty lot in the middle of nowhere in Nebraska vs the value of a lot in Manhattan. Land in Manhattan is more valuable because more people want land in Manhattan. This is only incidentally related to the cost to build all the physical infrastructure, which is the only part that land value tax ignores.

thaumasiotes 3y ago
No, the land value tax ignores the value created by the physical infrastructure. The cost of building the physical infrastructure is ignored by... every tax system. (Well, except for VAT.) It's not relevant to anything.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  > land value tax ignores the value created by the physical infrastructure LVT ignores the value created by the improvements on that piece of property. It does not ignore the value created by other land/improvements. If my neighbor makes an improvement to their land that makes my land have more value, that increase in value is subject to tax on my land. (Otherwise, the taxable value of land in a city would never increase.) If I own the only subway station in a city, that's not particularly valuable. If someone else builds a second subway station and connects theirs to mine, the value of my land and the value of the land of my immediate abutters increases. If 40 other stations are built, that effect is further magnified. These physical improvements on other properties result in increases in the value of the land near subway stations, which in turn increases the value of the land of the subway station.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    And when you own the only 100 subway stations in the city? So far you've refused to answer this question many, many times in a row. It's not complicated. See this comment above you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37568145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37568145
- chipsa 3y ago
  It ignores the value of the physical infrastructure on that property. It's not ignoring the value of the physical infrastructure around it. And this discussion ignores the most likely method of determining the value, which isn't by individual determination of the lot, but by determining the price per sq ft for a block or neighborhood, then multiplying by the size of the lot. Which is a roundabout saying that it may in fact incorporate the existence of the physical infrastructure, but only in so far as it makes the land of the neighborhood more valuable.

thaumasiotes 3y ago

No, the land value tax ignores the value created by the physical infrastructure. The cost of building the physical infrastructure is ignored by... every tax system. (Well, except for VAT.) It's not relevant to anything.

sokoloff 3y ago
> land value tax ignores the value created by the physical infrastructure LVT ignores the value created by the improvements on that piece of property. It does not ignore the value created by other land/improvements. If my neighbor makes an improvement to their land that makes my land have more value, that increase in value is subject to tax on my land. (Otherwise, the taxable value of land in a city would never increase.) If I own the only subway station in a city, that's not particularly valuable. If someone else builds a second subway station and connects theirs to mine, the value of my land and the value of the land of my immediate abutters increases. If 40 other stations are built, that effect is further magnified. These physical improvements on other properties result in increases in the value of the land near subway stations, which in turn increases the value of the land of the subway station.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  And when you own the only 100 subway stations in the city? So far you've refused to answer this question many, many times in a row. It's not complicated. See this comment above you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37568145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37568145
chipsa 3y ago
It ignores the value of the physical infrastructure on that property. It's not ignoring the value of the physical infrastructure around it. And this discussion ignores the most likely method of determining the value, which isn't by individual determination of the lot, but by determining the price per sq ft for a block or neighborhood, then multiplying by the size of the lot. Which is a roundabout saying that it may in fact incorporate the existence of the physical infrastructure, but only in so far as it makes the land of the neighborhood more valuable.