3 ms·

If we want to assume that today's fair market value is already adjusted for expected potential value, don't we already have this land value tax then? Is the arg

If we want to assume that today's fair market value is already adjusted for expected potential value, don't we already have this land value tax then? Is the argument here that we just need higher property taxes rather than a new type of tax or a new type of property valuation?

lotsofpulp 2y ago
The idea is to disincentivize using land to hoard wealth at the expense of society, for example an empty plot or abandoned building in the middle of a busy city or intersection. Tens of thousands of people could benefit by making it a destination, versus being harmed by making it extra distance to travel around to get to a destination. So the tax is on the land instead of the improvement on the land. A person who sits on it and a developer who builds something like apartments with shops underneath pay the same property tax (aka land value tax).
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Are you just describing property tax as we have it today then? We already pay property taxes as a combination of the estimated raw land value and "improvements" made to the land. If that's the case I don't really have a problem here, but there's also no debate to since we already impose that tax on land owners.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    Property tax as we have it does not punish leaving land empty or underutilized. Property tax needs to be updated so that it is a land value tax, so people cannot use prime real estate as a piggy bank at the expense of everyone else.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      > So the tax is on the land instead of the improvement on the land. Your last comment seems to contradict this one though. You were describing a tax based on the value of the land rather than the value of improvements. That's precisely what we have today. If you're wanting to punish people for leaving land underutilized you do in fact need to tax based on what the potential value of the land is when fully utilized. Thst runs smack into the challenge of how to value potential value if the land was fully utilized and the question of whether we can be so sure that high density is the answer that we disincentivize lower density living. Edit: reading this again I think we're either saying the same thing in slightly different ways or I just misunderstood you. When I'm talking about improvements I do mean potential future improvements that could be made to the land, I think that's what most people mean by a land value tax. Meaning, taxing a person for the value of a piece of land as if there were already a condo on it because we'd rather them build that than leave it empty or build a single family home. I see that as a huge problem, both because it requires a massive amount of accurate (and oppressive) central planning and because it's impossible to know what the land would be worth when "fully utilized". We would have to define what fully utlizied means, accepting that it's entirely based on personal preference, and then envision what the whole community would look like if built out that way and what that would then be valued at.

lotsofpulp 2y ago

The idea is to disincentivize using land to hoard wealth at the expense of society, for example an empty plot or abandoned building in the middle of a busy city or intersection. Tens of thousands of people could benefit by making it a destination, versus being harmed by making it extra distance to travel around to get to a destination. So the tax is on the land instead of the improvement on the land. A person who sits on it and a developer who builds something like apartments with shops underneath pay the same property tax (aka land value tax).

_heimdall 2y ago
Are you just describing property tax as we have it today then? We already pay property taxes as a combination of the estimated raw land value and "improvements" made to the land. If that's the case I don't really have a problem here, but there's also no debate to since we already impose that tax on land owners.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  Property tax as we have it does not punish leaving land empty or underutilized. Property tax needs to be updated so that it is a land value tax, so people cannot use prime real estate as a piggy bank at the expense of everyone else.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    > So the tax is on the land instead of the improvement on the land. Your last comment seems to contradict this one though. You were describing a tax based on the value of the land rather than the value of improvements. That's precisely what we have today. If you're wanting to punish people for leaving land underutilized you do in fact need to tax based on what the potential value of the land is when fully utilized. Thst runs smack into the challenge of how to value potential value if the land was fully utilized and the question of whether we can be so sure that high density is the answer that we disincentivize lower density living. Edit: reading this again I think we're either saying the same thing in slightly different ways or I just misunderstood you. When I'm talking about improvements I do mean potential future improvements that could be made to the land, I think that's what most people mean by a land value tax. Meaning, taxing a person for the value of a piece of land as if there were already a condo on it because we'd rather them build that than leave it empty or build a single family home. I see that as a huge problem, both because it requires a massive amount of accurate (and oppressive) central planning and because it's impossible to know what the land would be worth when "fully utilized". We would have to define what fully utlizied means, accepting that it's entirely based on personal preference, and then envision what the whole community would look like if built out that way and what that would then be valued at.