3 ms·

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

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.

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.