6 ms·

If you just tax land, people will have to actually generate revenue from the land they own instead of letting it rot a city from the inside out.

by alexb_ 3y ago

alexfromapex 3y ago
While introducing some entropy is great in theory, the result in reality would be a de facto rent which is just passed further upstream. Please play the game Monopoly and you'll see what I mean.
- mattnewton 3y ago
  The tax is payed to the state not the banks and would replace some of the patchwork of other taxes they use, many of which indirectly discourage land improvement (by taxing the value of the property built on the land) or being productive (income tax, which does not tax vacant lots, only productive ones)
- savanaly 3y ago
  It's ironic you would cite Monopoly given its connection to Henry George, the historical figure who first proposed the land tax the poster you're responding to was certainly referencing.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  You've got it backwards, that stuff doesn't even exist in Monopoly™: There is no property tax nor land-value tax, because once you've purchased some land you can hold on to it forever for no additional cost. (Fees from moving across the board doesn't count, those aren't tied to how much you own.) That's not an oversight either, the original game was made to demonstrate that landlords were bad and with gobble everything up to become despots if not stopped. Even if those factors did exist, the rules still don't allow players to arbitrarily raise rent, otherwise you could just demand infinity money from another player and it would be a short game indeed.
  - alexfromapex 3y ago
    I don’t have it backwards, it was how you interpreted it. Being as succinct as possible, land taxes merely adds a new landlord: the government.
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
If a landlord has a storefront that he's letting sit empty, paying the mortgage on the property (and also the existing taxes, if they aren't part of the mortgage), and the insurance, and the security... why do you think that a land tax is going to change things? Especially if a land tax replaces a land-plus-improvements tax, which may come out a wash for many storefront-owners? (And, if it's a ground-level storefront in a highrise, their taxes may go down, because the land is a lower part of the value of their property.) Don't change the incentives (very much) for this particular behavior, and watch the behavior not change.
- jjk166 3y ago
  They're probably not paying a mortgage on a property that may have been purchased decades ago, especially if they were buying cheap land before it came into high demand. Insurance and security for vacant buildings and especially vacant lots is pennies; certainly much cheaper than for a developed property with tenants. The only serious cost of a non-productive property for a landowner are property taxes, which are currently structured such that developing a property causes them to go up, while leaving a property undeveloped keeps taxes low. Taxing the land value is a major change to the incentive structure.
  - bequanna 3y ago
    How does this change anything at all? The assessor determines the approximate value. That value is theoretically the same whether occupied or not and is already taxed. I don’t follow what this “land value tax” is proposing to change.
    - throwaway092323 3y ago
      If tax is based on land improvement, a flat parking lot in a busy area is profitable, even if it doesn't provide optimal value to the community. The owner may wish to add some buildings to the lot, but land improvement tax means they have to pay extra to have and keep those buildings, even if a recession keeps them empty. Land value tax flips this, removing some of the risk of adding value to a property while discouraging hoarding.
4death4 3y ago
Land is taxed? It’s called: property taxes. Most of the value of property in NYC is the land itself. A land value tax isn’t going to magically change that.
- MrRolleyes 3y ago
  [dead]
- dehrmann 3y ago
  Once taxes pay for basic government services, this brings up the question of to what extent it's your land. Sure, you can't step on your neighbor's rights with lots of noise or something it isn't zoned for, but I feel like if you can't use it for nothing, it's not really yours.
  - pests 3y ago
    Its all relative. In some countries you can't cut a (normal, everyday) tree down on your own property without asking the government for permission.
  - sapling-ginger 3y ago
    Land ownership is indeed an illusion. Your "ownership" of real estate is contingent on the existence of a suite of government apparatus that can verify the authenticity of that piece of paper you call your land title. It's contingent on the existence of a military force that holds the border of your country, such that a foreign entity does not just come in and install a different land office that doesn't recognize that piece of paper you call your land title. This is one of the core principle of Georgism, that the value and usefulness of a piece of land is tied to the infrastructure that the government has built around it. Therefore the titleholder should pay for the upkeep of that government and infrastructure, hence the idea of the land tax as a single tax.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ethanbond 3y ago

If you just tax land, people will have to actually generate revenue from the land they own instead of letting it rot a city from the inside out.

by alexb_ 3y ago

If you just tax land, people will have to actually generate revenue from the land they own instead of letting it rot a city from the inside out.

alexfromapex 3y ago

While introducing some entropy is great in theory, the result in reality would be a de facto rent which is just passed further upstream. Please play the game Monopoly and you'll see what I mean.

mattnewton 3y ago
The tax is payed to the state not the banks and would replace some of the patchwork of other taxes they use, many of which indirectly discourage land improvement (by taxing the value of the property built on the land) or being productive (income tax, which does not tax vacant lots, only productive ones)
savanaly 3y ago
It's ironic you would cite Monopoly given its connection to Henry George, the historical figure who first proposed the land tax the poster you're responding to was certainly referencing.
Terr_ 3y ago
You've got it backwards, that stuff doesn't even exist in Monopoly™: There is no property tax nor land-value tax, because once you've purchased some land you can hold on to it forever for no additional cost. (Fees from moving across the board doesn't count, those aren't tied to how much you own.) That's not an oversight either, the original game was made to demonstrate that landlords were bad and with gobble everything up to become despots if not stopped. Even if those factors did exist, the rules still don't allow players to arbitrarily raise rent, otherwise you could just demand infinity money from another player and it would be a short game indeed.
- alexfromapex 3y ago
  I don’t have it backwards, it was how you interpreted it. Being as succinct as possible, land taxes merely adds a new landlord: the government.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

If a landlord has a storefront that he's letting sit empty, paying the mortgage on the property (and also the existing taxes, if they aren't part of the mortgage), and the insurance, and the security... why do you think that a land tax is going to change things? Especially if a land tax replaces a land-plus-improvements tax, which may come out a wash for many storefront-owners? (And, if it's a ground-level storefront in a highrise, their taxes may go down, because the land is a lower part of the value of their property.) Don't change the incentives (very much) for this particular behavior, and watch the behavior not change.

jjk166 3y ago
They're probably not paying a mortgage on a property that may have been purchased decades ago, especially if they were buying cheap land before it came into high demand. Insurance and security for vacant buildings and especially vacant lots is pennies; certainly much cheaper than for a developed property with tenants. The only serious cost of a non-productive property for a landowner are property taxes, which are currently structured such that developing a property causes them to go up, while leaving a property undeveloped keeps taxes low. Taxing the land value is a major change to the incentive structure.
- bequanna 3y ago
  How does this change anything at all? The assessor determines the approximate value. That value is theoretically the same whether occupied or not and is already taxed. I don’t follow what this “land value tax” is proposing to change.
  - throwaway092323 3y ago
    If tax is based on land improvement, a flat parking lot in a busy area is profitable, even if it doesn't provide optimal value to the community. The owner may wish to add some buildings to the lot, but land improvement tax means they have to pay extra to have and keep those buildings, even if a recession keeps them empty. Land value tax flips this, removing some of the risk of adding value to a property while discouraging hoarding.

4death4 3y ago

Land is taxed? It’s called: property taxes. Most of the value of property in NYC is the land itself. A land value tax isn’t going to magically change that.

MrRolleyes 3y ago
[dead]
dehrmann 3y ago
Once taxes pay for basic government services, this brings up the question of to what extent it's your land. Sure, you can't step on your neighbor's rights with lots of noise or something it isn't zoned for, but I feel like if you can't use it for nothing, it's not really yours.
- pests 3y ago
  Its all relative. In some countries you can't cut a (normal, everyday) tree down on your own property without asking the government for permission.
- sapling-ginger 3y ago
  Land ownership is indeed an illusion. Your "ownership" of real estate is contingent on the existence of a suite of government apparatus that can verify the authenticity of that piece of paper you call your land title. It's contingent on the existence of a military force that holds the border of your country, such that a foreign entity does not just come in and install a different land office that doesn't recognize that piece of paper you call your land title. This is one of the core principle of Georgism, that the value and usefulness of a piece of land is tied to the infrastructure that the government has built around it. Therefore the titleholder should pay for the upkeep of that government and infrastructure, hence the idea of the land tax as a single tax.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ethanbond 3y ago