4 ms·
Again, property taxes already exist. This is simpler.
by fastball 3y ago
Again, property taxes already exist. This is simpler.
- robertlagrant 3y agoAs I understand it, property tax is simple when there's been a recent sale. The complexity comes from a similar issue to land value: no recent sale. In this case it's worse because valuing the land outside of what it's used for is a mess.
- mactrey 3y agoBut this problem already exists. Many people live in homes for 30+ years and pay property tax on the land + improvement (physical home) value. Why would it be so much harder to hypothetically value the land without a recent sale (required for a LVT) than to hypothetically value the land + improvements without a recent sale (required for property taxes which currently exist in almost every city in America)?
- kevincox 3y agoBecause their neighbours have sold their houses recently. So using similar sales as a baseline and then factoring in a few differences between those properties and the one that is being assessed is much easier than doing that and then subtracting the built-up value. Basically all of your data points are the built-up prices. So it is going to be easier to estimate the built-up value than the raw property value. Maybe not much easier, but definitely not harder.
- mactrey 3y agoThen yes, I’ll agree with that. Both can be difficult but valuing just the underlying land is harder.
- nonethewiser 3y agoDo you think taxing by sub components of land would be simpler yet? Maybe we should tax by rock content. Or maybe a tax based on more things has nothing to do with complexity. The largest market is for land and structures. That makes it the simplest to value.
- mactrey 3y agoThere's not an argument from economic efficiency to tax by rock content.