4 ms·

Land value tax is turning out to be this year’s universal basic income.

mindslight 3y ago
When the wish for a positive solution doesn't pan out, people turn to the spiteful negative. Turn up the pain on others, that will solve things. Never mind that many real estate tax regimes already include a component based on the land value. Presumably to LVT enthusiasts those just aren't high enough. When the right level of pain has created the perfect incentives, wasteful duplexes will vanish and high density arcologies will spring forth out of the ground! The real root of the problem was touched upon by the OP - the past two plus decades of ridiculously low interest rates as set by the Fed in support of one talking-head crisis or another. Borrowed money can only be invested in things banksters can understand, which given their limited imaginations is chiefly single family beige spec homes.
- ufocia 3y ago
  Not just bankers. REITs also don't invest in groundbreaking endeavors, or do they?
- Gormo 3y ago
  > Never mind that many real estate tax regimes already include a component based on the land value. It's strange, because almost all property tax systems in the US are based on ad valorem taxation. I'm personally opposed to the concept as a matter of fundamental principle. Society can't function if people's property rights are constantly under the threat of being usurped by someone whose intended uses might generate more tax revenue for the state. People should have a right to use the property they own in the way that generates maximum value for them -- that's the point of property ownership. It's also why real-world ad valorem tax regimes usually include homestead exemptions or something similar. Some of these LVT proposals amount to just turning the whole of society into a tax farm, and suppressing all variation and outlier use cases in the name of maximizing tax revenue. Georgism is fundamentally flawed in its precepts, and would result in a rent-seeking political state acting as a monopolist landlord.
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago
    This argument sounds backwards to me. Under the common ad valorem property taxes, the tax you pay goes up if you invest in increasing the value of your property, which punishes you for improving it and incentivizes leaving your land fallow. Under a land value tax, building on your land does not increase the tax you pay. That’s the point!
    - Gormo 3y ago
      > Under a land value tax, building on your land does not increase the tax you pay. That’s the point! The Georgist LVT is much more bizarre than that. Your taxes don't go up as a result of the improvements you make to your land, but rather they go up as a result of the improvements your neighbors make to their land, if such improvements lead to increased perceived market value for the entire area. Ad valorem taxes already do this to some extent, but are tempered by assessment rules and annual caps on increases, to prevent people from losing their own property just because of external fads or the subjective feelings of others. I guess I just don't get what benefit the LVT proposals are bringing to the table. Ad valorem taxation already exists, it's already well-developed enough to have safeguards against the worst-case outcomes, and all the Georgist LVT would do is reinvent the wheel, but this time using design principles anchored in a fundamentally incoherent ideology that brings along a lot of other dangerous implications. I have to ask what real-world problem any of these proposals are a solution to, because from my vantage point, I don't really see one. I see devotees of an abstract doctrine going out of their way to contrive scenarios to apply their doctrine to.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago
        I can’t speak for Georgists, but one clear problem I see worth solving in my city is empty lots downtown. And decrepit, vacant commercial property. Our city has a housing crisis. Speculators own these lots on the theory that they’ll be valuable later. Since property taxes don’t go up unless you build something, they don’t have any costs associated with this ownership, even as the need for development has grown more acute. On the other hand, significant property taxes are imposed on anyone who actually builds or significantly improves their property. You tax what you want to discourage. Our current tax system discourages development in general. LVT addresses this problem. In short, ad valorem taxes land+improvement and LVT just taxes land. Various tweaks that have been made to ad valorem systems could also be made to LVT and don’t constitute a difference between ad valorem and LVT. The objections you raise about how your neighbor’s development raises your taxes apply to both LVT and ad valorem tax regimes.

When the wish for a positive solution doesn't pan out, people turn to the spiteful negative. Turn up the pain on others, that will solve things. Never mind that many real estate tax regimes already include a component based on the land value. Presumably to LVT enthusiasts those just aren't high enough. When the right level of pain has created the perfect incentives, wasteful duplexes will vanish and high density arcologies will spring forth out of the ground! The real root of the problem was touched upon by the OP - the past two plus decades of ridiculously low interest rates as set by the Fed in support of one talking-head crisis or another. Borrowed money can only be invested in things banksters can understand, which given their limited imaginations is chiefly single family beige spec homes.

ufocia 3y ago
Not just bankers. REITs also don't invest in groundbreaking endeavors, or do they?
Gormo 3y ago
> Never mind that many real estate tax regimes already include a component based on the land value. It's strange, because almost all property tax systems in the US are based on ad valorem taxation. I'm personally opposed to the concept as a matter of fundamental principle. Society can't function if people's property rights are constantly under the threat of being usurped by someone whose intended uses might generate more tax revenue for the state. People should have a right to use the property they own in the way that generates maximum value for them -- that's the point of property ownership. It's also why real-world ad valorem tax regimes usually include homestead exemptions or something similar. Some of these LVT proposals amount to just turning the whole of society into a tax farm, and suppressing all variation and outlier use cases in the name of maximizing tax revenue. Georgism is fundamentally flawed in its precepts, and would result in a rent-seeking political state acting as a monopolist landlord.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago
  This argument sounds backwards to me. Under the common ad valorem property taxes, the tax you pay goes up if you invest in increasing the value of your property, which punishes you for improving it and incentivizes leaving your land fallow. Under a land value tax, building on your land does not increase the tax you pay. That’s the point!
  - Gormo 3y ago
    > Under a land value tax, building on your land does not increase the tax you pay. That’s the point! The Georgist LVT is much more bizarre than that. Your taxes don't go up as a result of the improvements you make to your land, but rather they go up as a result of the improvements your neighbors make to their land, if such improvements lead to increased perceived market value for the entire area. Ad valorem taxes already do this to some extent, but are tempered by assessment rules and annual caps on increases, to prevent people from losing their own property just because of external fads or the subjective feelings of others. I guess I just don't get what benefit the LVT proposals are bringing to the table. Ad valorem taxation already exists, it's already well-developed enough to have safeguards against the worst-case outcomes, and all the Georgist LVT would do is reinvent the wheel, but this time using design principles anchored in a fundamentally incoherent ideology that brings along a lot of other dangerous implications. I have to ask what real-world problem any of these proposals are a solution to, because from my vantage point, I don't really see one. I see devotees of an abstract doctrine going out of their way to contrive scenarios to apply their doctrine to.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago
      I can’t speak for Georgists, but one clear problem I see worth solving in my city is empty lots downtown. And decrepit, vacant commercial property. Our city has a housing crisis. Speculators own these lots on the theory that they’ll be valuable later. Since property taxes don’t go up unless you build something, they don’t have any costs associated with this ownership, even as the need for development has grown more acute. On the other hand, significant property taxes are imposed on anyone who actually builds or significantly improves their property. You tax what you want to discourage. Our current tax system discourages development in general. LVT addresses this problem. In short, ad valorem taxes land+improvement and LVT just taxes land. Various tweaks that have been made to ad valorem systems could also be made to LVT and don’t constitute a difference between ad valorem and LVT. The objections you raise about how your neighbor’s development raises your taxes apply to both LVT and ad valorem tax regimes.