4 ms·
> Did you get confused with a different comment chain? Nope. > my comment indicates that it's impossible to determine the 'unimproved value', because there ar
by jabl 3y ago
> Did you get confused with a different comment chain?
Nope.
> my comment indicates that it's impossible to determine the 'unimproved value', because there are no records of land values during the times of pre-human habitation of the north american continent.
My point was that this definition of 'unimproved value' is a strawman. Nobody except you is claiming that this is the definition of 'unimproved value' that is used in discussions about a land value tax. In the context of LVT, 'unimproved value' pretty much means the value of a lot minus any buildings on it (in jurisdictions that have a LVT, I'm sure they have a much more specific definition of it, so the government doesn't have to spend endless time in court with nitpickers). So it definitely includes things like a bustling city around the lot, with roads, sewers and other infrastructure, shops, apartments, and whatnot. Nobody is trying to figure out the value of a plot of land in pre-human times for tax purposes.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoAssuming that's true, then who gets to choose the cutoff date or set the cutoff criteria? City council, voters, etc.? If so, what's stopping them from changing the definition every election cycle to score political points?
- afiori 3y ago> In the context of LVT, 'unimproved value' pretty much means the value of a lot minus any buildings on it no cutoff necessary, the distinction is between thins on the lot of land and things not on the lot of land today.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoBut the 'value of a lot minus any buildings on it' is a subjective definition that can be changed? It clearly's possible one election year for that definition to be expanded to included remediation of any underground improvements for example, or a penalty if it uses certain undesirable materials, etc...