3 ms·

I suspect you don’t know what you’re talking about based on your subsequent conflation of property tax with a land value tax. That’s a good shibboleth for “nev

I suspect you don’t know what you’re talking about based on your subsequent conflation of property tax with a land value tax. That’s a good shibboleth for “never have actually engaged this idea.”

wakawaka28 2y ago
Property tax is a land value tax. You literally pay a percentage of some notional value of your property every year, largely based on how you use it. The fact you don't recognize that is a good shibboleth for "never have engaged with the real world."
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  A portion of a property tax is a land value tax, but 1) it’s only one portion of it and 2) it’s the opposite of the portion that you just described. It’s very specifically not based on how you use the land. And that’s literally the core fact of the system. The two calculations yield entirely different incentives. It’s clear you misunderstood it. I recommend reading the book itself as it will be clearer than you’ve apparently had it explained.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    >It’s very specifically not based on how you use the land. Sorry but you are wrong. Farmers and homeowners pay less than investors. If you build expensive stuff on the property (put another way, if you USE it to do something expensive) you generally pay more. Again, I don't need to read a whole book, much less one based on pure idealism and with no thought given to real economic data and real human nature, to know that it is generally wrong. I don't need to read the whole book here any more than I need to read the whole bible to doubt it. You need to learn about the real world and stop assuming you know better than everyone just because you read an old book. Sometimes a book review is actually enough to get the gist. I even got reviews from people who thought highly of the book, and I was unconvinced.
    - danielhep 2y ago
      > If you build expensive stuff on the property you generally pay more. This is not Land Value Tax. Georgism is an argument against this concept of taxing based on what you do with the land.
      - wakawaka28 2y ago
        So, am I to understand that prime beach real estate is to be taxed the same as a plot in a desert or swamp? There is clearly a lot of trouble with taxing land, because an inherent part of its value is what you can do with it. People pay premium for land that is useful and desireable. The structures placed on land and the values thereof are proportional to this desirability and economic utility. Furthermore, it might be necessary to use land for farming or warehouses when it is more profitably used for residential structures. A free market might eventually sort out higher food prices that can cover the taxes, but I think we can all agree that it's better to not arbitrarily increase taxes on a necessity like food.
        reshlo 2y ago
        > So, am I to understand that prime beach real estate is to be taxed the same as a plot in a desert or swamp? Why would that be the case? A beachfront plot would likely have a higher value than a plot in a desert or swamp, so the tax levied on the beachfront plot’s value would, of course, be higher. It’s a tax on the land’s value, not a tax on the size of the plot.
        wakawaka28 2y ago
        The value of land is largely subjective. It is based on demand, among other things. If the government assigns arbitrarily high or low value to land based on hypothetical worlds where the land could be used for high rises, factories, or whatever as opposed to what economics has proven is the best actual use of the land and its best estimated price, that is just a terrible version of the same thing we have now.

wakawaka28 2y ago

Property tax is a land value tax. You literally pay a percentage of some notional value of your property every year, largely based on how you use it. The fact you don't recognize that is a good shibboleth for "never have engaged with the real world."

llamaimperative 2y ago
A portion of a property tax is a land value tax, but 1) it’s only one portion of it and 2) it’s the opposite of the portion that you just described. It’s very specifically not based on how you use the land. And that’s literally the core fact of the system. The two calculations yield entirely different incentives. It’s clear you misunderstood it. I recommend reading the book itself as it will be clearer than you’ve apparently had it explained.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  >It’s very specifically not based on how you use the land. Sorry but you are wrong. Farmers and homeowners pay less than investors. If you build expensive stuff on the property (put another way, if you USE it to do something expensive) you generally pay more. Again, I don't need to read a whole book, much less one based on pure idealism and with no thought given to real economic data and real human nature, to know that it is generally wrong. I don't need to read the whole book here any more than I need to read the whole bible to doubt it. You need to learn about the real world and stop assuming you know better than everyone just because you read an old book. Sometimes a book review is actually enough to get the gist. I even got reviews from people who thought highly of the book, and I was unconvinced.
  - danielhep 2y ago
    > If you build expensive stuff on the property you generally pay more. This is not Land Value Tax. Georgism is an argument against this concept of taxing based on what you do with the land.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      So, am I to understand that prime beach real estate is to be taxed the same as a plot in a desert or swamp? There is clearly a lot of trouble with taxing land, because an inherent part of its value is what you can do with it. People pay premium for land that is useful and desireable. The structures placed on land and the values thereof are proportional to this desirability and economic utility. Furthermore, it might be necessary to use land for farming or warehouses when it is more profitably used for residential structures. A free market might eventually sort out higher food prices that can cover the taxes, but I think we can all agree that it's better to not arbitrarily increase taxes on a necessity like food.
      - reshlo 2y ago
        > So, am I to understand that prime beach real estate is to be taxed the same as a plot in a desert or swamp? Why would that be the case? A beachfront plot would likely have a higher value than a plot in a desert or swamp, so the tax levied on the beachfront plot’s value would, of course, be higher. It’s a tax on the land’s value, not a tax on the size of the plot.
        wakawaka28 2y ago
        The value of land is largely subjective. It is based on demand, among other things. If the government assigns arbitrarily high or low value to land based on hypothetical worlds where the land could be used for high rises, factories, or whatever as opposed to what economics has proven is the best actual use of the land and its best estimated price, that is just a terrible version of the same thing we have now.