4 ms·

A land value tax seeks to only tax the value of the land itself, not the improvements. Of course that's not always easy to assess, but neither are property valu

A land value tax seeks to only tax the value of the land itself, not the improvements. Of course that's not always easy to assess, but neither are property values for normal property taxes. Even setting that aside, if the land value taxes on the land that someone owns dramatically increase then that means the value of their property has dramatically increased, and they can sell the land for a dramatic profit. Certainly it sucks that someone might have to sell; however, don't think that someone who becomes rich due to their home value appreciating is really much of a victim in the grand scheme of things.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
The land value in absence of human activity is zero. All value stems from improvements made by people, either on the land, or nearby.
- lmm 3y ago
  > All value stems from improvements made by people, either on the land, or nearby. Sure. Most of the value comes from the efforts of people who have nothing in particular to do with the "owner" of the land though.
- epistasis 3y ago
  Exactly. And that's why taxing the land itself—and therefore access to all those improvements and amenities—is a good way to allocate it. If somebody is sitting on a prime seat in the hot tub, and they don't really care very much about it, and there's a line of 20 people waiting to get in, we have a wasted resource. Revealing true preferences by having people put some skin in the game means that more people are happy, more people are productive, and society works better.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    That is a great argument for never building a hot tub, or participating in a project to build one. Why bother making a tub, a neighborhood, or a community if it can simply be taken from you. Id rather burn mine to the ground than have it taken away just because someone else wants it more. They might not even want it more, but they just have more money.
    - epistasis 3y ago
      I don't think you understand, it can't be taken from you, at least no more than now. Nearly every single person will pay less tax on their home under LVT than a property tax, too.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        >Nearly every single person will pay less tax on their home under LVT than a property tax, too. How could that possibly be true. The lvt would have to be high enough to replace revenue from all current income taxes, sales taxes, corporate taxes, and current property taxes. It would also be based on land used, so Warren be buffet and someone working at Walmart would have the same tax bill if they both own houses in the same neighborhood. It is incredibly regressive. Elon Musk can live out of his small undesirable home in boca chia, so his total taxes would be close to zero
        lmm 3y ago
        > It would also be based on land used, so Warren be buffet and someone working at Walmart would have the same tax bill if they both own houses in the same neighborhood. If they both live in the same size house in the same neighbourhood, sure. If a billionaire really wants to live in a closet to spite the taxman, that's fine, although I don't know why they'd bother having the billion. They aren't imposing on the community, they apparently made their billion without using any space (because it's not just homes, the whole point is that it applies to every kind of land use, good for them. > It is incredibly regressive. It's the opposite. Land ownership is the biggest thing separating the upper and lower classes. > Elon Musk can live out of his small undesirable home in boca chia, so his total taxes would be close to zero He'd still have to pay LVT on his giant factory and fashionable city-centre showrooms, so skimping on his home is not going to make a lot of difference.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        The point is that money can buy you a lot more than land. A Picasso takes no land. Elons giga factory would pay no land tax because the land vale is zero. It is in the middle of the desert surrounded by employ land that nobody wants.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

The land value in absence of human activity is zero. All value stems from improvements made by people, either on the land, or nearby.

lmm 3y ago
> All value stems from improvements made by people, either on the land, or nearby. Sure. Most of the value comes from the efforts of people who have nothing in particular to do with the "owner" of the land though.
epistasis 3y ago
Exactly. And that's why taxing the land itself—and therefore access to all those improvements and amenities—is a good way to allocate it. If somebody is sitting on a prime seat in the hot tub, and they don't really care very much about it, and there's a line of 20 people waiting to get in, we have a wasted resource. Revealing true preferences by having people put some skin in the game means that more people are happy, more people are productive, and society works better.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  That is a great argument for never building a hot tub, or participating in a project to build one. Why bother making a tub, a neighborhood, or a community if it can simply be taken from you. Id rather burn mine to the ground than have it taken away just because someone else wants it more. They might not even want it more, but they just have more money.
  - epistasis 3y ago
    I don't think you understand, it can't be taken from you, at least no more than now. Nearly every single person will pay less tax on their home under LVT than a property tax, too.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      >Nearly every single person will pay less tax on their home under LVT than a property tax, too. How could that possibly be true. The lvt would have to be high enough to replace revenue from all current income taxes, sales taxes, corporate taxes, and current property taxes. It would also be based on land used, so Warren be buffet and someone working at Walmart would have the same tax bill if they both own houses in the same neighborhood. It is incredibly regressive. Elon Musk can live out of his small undesirable home in boca chia, so his total taxes would be close to zero
      - lmm 3y ago
        > It would also be based on land used, so Warren be buffet and someone working at Walmart would have the same tax bill if they both own houses in the same neighborhood. If they both live in the same size house in the same neighbourhood, sure. If a billionaire really wants to live in a closet to spite the taxman, that's fine, although I don't know why they'd bother having the billion. They aren't imposing on the community, they apparently made their billion without using any space (because it's not just homes, the whole point is that it applies to every kind of land use, good for them. > It is incredibly regressive. It's the opposite. Land ownership is the biggest thing separating the upper and lower classes. > Elon Musk can live out of his small undesirable home in boca chia, so his total taxes would be close to zero He'd still have to pay LVT on his giant factory and fashionable city-centre showrooms, so skimping on his home is not going to make a lot of difference.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        The point is that money can buy you a lot more than land. A Picasso takes no land. Elons giga factory would pay no land tax because the land vale is zero. It is in the middle of the desert surrounded by employ land that nobody wants.