4 ms·

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
Land and property taxes are different and they’re different in exactly the way required to yield really, really stupid outcomes. If you have two identical lots, one that’s developed into apartments, a restaurant, and some office space, and the other that’s left as dirt surrounded by a chain link fence, which one has the lower tax bill? If you have a 20+ year investment horizon, which approach allows you to more easily capture the appreciation created by all your neighbors who are working their asses off to build restaurants and offices and attractions?

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

Land and property taxes are different and they’re different in exactly the way required to yield really, really stupid outcomes. If you have two identical lots, one that’s developed into apartments, a restaurant, and some office space, and the other that’s left as dirt surrounded by a chain link fence, which one has the lower tax bill? If you have a 20+ year investment horizon, which approach allows you to more easily capture the appreciation created by all your neighbors who are working their asses off to build restaurants and offices and attractions?