4 ms·
I know you were not using the term incorrectly. My problem is with the term, altogether. As you've said, you wish to have a higher tax on land. That is very re
by ejstronge 3y ago
I know you were not using the term incorrectly. My problem is with the term, altogether.
As you've said, you wish to have a higher tax on land. That is very reasonable, and a policy position that one could examine within the established context of our property tax regime.
> Property tax doesn't adequately tax the value of the land. That's the whole point. This was a vacant, unbuilt lot in the heart of New York City. For ~thirty years. That shouldn't even be a thing ever.
No tax will prevent this behavior if the final benefit to the owner is high enough.
How would a land value tax on three adjacent parcels stop an investor from waiting 30 years for the chance to combine the parcels and unlock far greater value?
- gottorf 3y ago> No tax will prevent this behavior if the final benefit to the owner is high enough. Well, naturally. But a speculative bet that a un-/under-developed piece of land will become vastly more valuable in 30 years looks less and less appealing the more the owner is taxed on the value of the land itself, vs. the value of the improvements upon it, which for a undeveloped parcel is by definition very low. I don't know the specifics for NYC, but I do know that there is effectively no jurisdiction within the US that even comes close to a full LVT as imagined by Henry George.
- ProfessorLayton 3y ago>How would a land value tax on three adjacent parcels stop an investor from waiting 30 years for the chance to combine the parcels and unlock far greater value? The goal isn't to stop a developer from combining parcels, or whatever their development objective is — LVT changes the calculus on speculative investments, and hopefully benefiting tax payers as well. If a developer wants to sit on a parcels for 3 decades, they're still able to do so but they'll also need to pay up for keeping high-value land vacant. That money can then be reinvested into the community.
- ejstronge 3y ago> If a developer wants to sit on a parcels for 3 decades, they're still able to do so but they'll also need to pay up for keeping high-value land vacant. That money can then be reinvested into the community. How is that different from what happens now? It sounds like what you are saying is that you don't believe that property taxes are high enough since there exist vacant buildings. That is a fine thing to believe but there is nothing about the current structure of property taxes that goes against this, in principle, besides the tax rate.
- ProfessorLayton 3y agoI'm not arguing for specifics in implementation, rather the outcomes: Better use of productive land and infrastructure. If the current structure isn't providing that, then perhaps LVT is the way to go over our current structure. If it turns out LTV didn't provide the desired outcomes, then let's try something else! The current status quo of letting developers speculate endlessly while holding back growth or even providing negative economic externalities doesn't seem to be working as well as it could be.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- userinanother 3y agoYes but if you have a vacant property tax or greatly increases cost of holding and makes the risk reward less favorable for long term holding
- ejstronge 3y agoYou and I are in agreement (see my responses earlier in the chain). All of this has nothing to do with a land value tax; instead, some people believe that cities should not allow vacant properties. This is a fine opinion, but it does not need to invoke a 100 year-old theory on taxation
- userinanother 3y agoHow else you do punish vacant land? I suppose you could fine people but it’s the same as a tax in all but name