3 ms·

Wouldn't that effectively punish the owner for improving the property? A tax purely on the land has the same justification as a windfall tax. The value goes up

Wouldn't that effectively punish the owner for improving the property? A tax purely on the land has the same justification as a windfall tax. The value goes up or down independently of any action of the owner. i.e. They didn't do anything to deserve the increase in their wealth. The value comes from what the land is surrounded by.

delecti 3y ago
The current situation can punish the owner for improving the property, because you pay based on the overall value of your house. A new roof and siding could make your home more valuable, increasing your tax. Land value tax would make your individual changes a non-factor. It could instead leave you on the hook for increases in the desirability of the neighborhood which you have no say in. So it would mean that homeowners get screwed even harder if their neighborhood gets gentrified. The steelman for it is that society should incentivize denser development of more desirable land, by disincentivizing maintaining sparse development of it.
- sagarm 3y ago
  > screwed even harder if their neighborhood gets gentrified. Meaning, their land value and therefore wealth has gone up. Many people would love to be "screwed" like this, and in fact very hard at getting into the position amenable to "screwing."
  - bart_spoon 3y ago
    Their wealth goes up but they can only access that wealth by selling. And in the meantime, if they don’t sell, simply living on the property becomes increasingly expensive. So yes, they won’t be walking away with nothing, but no, I can’t imagine the too many people enthused about the idea that a home that was affordable when they bought it is no longer affordable because the neighborhood is nicer.
    - sagarm 3y ago
      If the property has gone up in value, the area has clearly changed. Either they don't like the changes and can cash out their unearned windfall, or they do like the changes and can spend it. As a class, real property owners are wealthier and have means relative to people who don't own real property. The idea that they're some oppressed underclass is ridiculous.
- tuatoru 3y ago
  > society should incentivize denser development of more desirable land, by disincentivizing maintaining sparse development of it. That is exactly what a land value tax does, in a negative way. It disincentivizes buying land in a desirable neighborhood and then doing nothing with it, waiting for prices to rise. With capital value taxation (the other alternative), a person doing that pays less tax than someone providing buildings for people to live in or businesses to operate in. So they can do it for longer. Because any buildings on the land are not taxed, construction is not disincentivized. Well, it wouldn't be, if permitting were not insane...

delecti 3y ago

The current situation can punish the owner for improving the property, because you pay based on the overall value of your house. A new roof and siding could make your home more valuable, increasing your tax. Land value tax would make your individual changes a non-factor. It could instead leave you on the hook for increases in the desirability of the neighborhood which you have no say in. So it would mean that homeowners get screwed even harder if their neighborhood gets gentrified. The steelman for it is that society should incentivize denser development of more desirable land, by disincentivizing maintaining sparse development of it.

sagarm 3y ago
> screwed even harder if their neighborhood gets gentrified. Meaning, their land value and therefore wealth has gone up. Many people would love to be "screwed" like this, and in fact very hard at getting into the position amenable to "screwing."
- bart_spoon 3y ago
  Their wealth goes up but they can only access that wealth by selling. And in the meantime, if they don’t sell, simply living on the property becomes increasingly expensive. So yes, they won’t be walking away with nothing, but no, I can’t imagine the too many people enthused about the idea that a home that was affordable when they bought it is no longer affordable because the neighborhood is nicer.
  - sagarm 3y ago
    If the property has gone up in value, the area has clearly changed. Either they don't like the changes and can cash out their unearned windfall, or they do like the changes and can spend it. As a class, real property owners are wealthier and have means relative to people who don't own real property. The idea that they're some oppressed underclass is ridiculous.
tuatoru 3y ago
> society should incentivize denser development of more desirable land, by disincentivizing maintaining sparse development of it. That is exactly what a land value tax does, in a negative way. It disincentivizes buying land in a desirable neighborhood and then doing nothing with it, waiting for prices to rise. With capital value taxation (the other alternative), a person doing that pays less tax than someone providing buildings for people to live in or businesses to operate in. So they can do it for longer. Because any buildings on the land are not taxed, construction is not disincentivized. Well, it wouldn't be, if permitting were not insane...