4 ms·

But just because my land is worth £100k doesn't mean I should be forced to sell the house that is on it for only £100k! If you must have that sort of system, t

But just because my land is worth £100k doesn't mean I should be forced to sell the house that is on it for only £100k! If you must have that sort of system, there probably ought to be an obligation on the buyer to first pay to have the entire existing structure demolished.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
lordnacho 1y ago
Hmm that's a good point actually. Gets hard to separate the land from the stuff on it.
ajb 1y ago
That seems a rather pyhrric right. You don't actually get any value from them destroying your house. I think the offer is supposed to be on the improved value (IE including the value of the building) but the tax is on the unimproved value, so you do get the value of your house if they buy the land. Perhaps more reasonable would be, if we imagine a new Georgist city on undeveloped land, to require that every building is detachable from the land; IE it is attached to its foundations, by twistlocks, like intermodal containers, with the utilities also being supplied via some standardised connector. Not only would you then just be able to move your house to somewhere else, but it would have several other advantages. It would be a universal argument against NIMBYism - if you don't like new infrastructure being built near you, you can just move your house elsewhere. It would make it less disruptive to build new infrastructure anyway, as houses could be moved out of the way instead of being demolished.
- jstanley 1y ago
  The point of the system where you have to accept an offer at your supposed valuation is that it forces accurate valuations. If you now say that we need to provide two different valuations (land + structure) but we're only taxed on one, don't you think we'll find that everyone lives in very expensive houses on worthless plots of land?
  - ajb 1y ago
    No, because it's much easier to independently value a house What are you suggesting as an alternative? - Both taxation and offer on the improved value - this is consistent, but it's no longer Georgism so it doesn't solve the problem of how to estimate and tax the unimproved value - Both taxation and offer on the unimproved value - this is now unfair to the owner as you're not paying for the value of their house, and also they have the incentive to include the value of the house in the land value
    - jstanley 1y ago
      > What are you suggesting as an alternative? No mandatory acceptance of offers, land valuation by fiat.
- beeflet 1y ago
  >to require that every building is detachable from the land; IE it is attached to its foundations, by twistlocks, like intermodal containers, with the utilities also being supplied via some standardised connector. WHAT? This is ridiculous. What happens if someone buys the land out from under your skyscraper, and you can't afford to move it a couple blocks over? Do you live in a LEGO world?
  - ajb 1y ago
    It's a thought experiment, being angry at it doesn't add any value.
giantg2 1y ago
You could technically separate the house from the land using separate deeds and deed restrictions. That could create an interesting workaround that would effectively render the value of the land useless for most lots, thus avoiding the taxes.
beeflet 1y ago
>But just because my land is worth £100k doesn't mean I should be forced to sell the house that is on it for only £100k! Then you could "value" the land at £200k and pay a higher property tax to secure that preference. In other words, your property is more valuable, to you. >If you must have that sort of system, there probably ought to be an obligation on the buyer to first pay to have the entire existing structure demolished. I think you are right, which is a problem. Or you could stipulate that all the buildings are demolished before the land bought in this manner is used. I think this system would evolve into people overvaluing their land to be between the land and the land+building value, and then keeping a public offer for the land+building value. That strategy would minimize the land-only sales and encourage buyers to buy the entire building instead.
- jstanley 1y ago
  > In other words, your property is more valuable, to you. That's fine, but then it becomes a property tax rather than a land value tax.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

lordnacho 1y ago

Hmm that's a good point actually. Gets hard to separate the land from the stuff on it.

ajb 1y ago

That seems a rather pyhrric right. You don't actually get any value from them destroying your house. I think the offer is supposed to be on the improved value (IE including the value of the building) but the tax is on the unimproved value, so you do get the value of your house if they buy the land. Perhaps more reasonable would be, if we imagine a new Georgist city on undeveloped land, to require that every building is detachable from the land; IE it is attached to its foundations, by twistlocks, like intermodal containers, with the utilities also being supplied via some standardised connector. Not only would you then just be able to move your house to somewhere else, but it would have several other advantages. It would be a universal argument against NIMBYism - if you don't like new infrastructure being built near you, you can just move your house elsewhere. It would make it less disruptive to build new infrastructure anyway, as houses could be moved out of the way instead of being demolished.

jstanley 1y ago
The point of the system where you have to accept an offer at your supposed valuation is that it forces accurate valuations. If you now say that we need to provide two different valuations (land + structure) but we're only taxed on one, don't you think we'll find that everyone lives in very expensive houses on worthless plots of land?
- ajb 1y ago
  No, because it's much easier to independently value a house What are you suggesting as an alternative? - Both taxation and offer on the improved value - this is consistent, but it's no longer Georgism so it doesn't solve the problem of how to estimate and tax the unimproved value - Both taxation and offer on the unimproved value - this is now unfair to the owner as you're not paying for the value of their house, and also they have the incentive to include the value of the house in the land value
  - jstanley 1y ago
    > What are you suggesting as an alternative? No mandatory acceptance of offers, land valuation by fiat.
beeflet 1y ago
>to require that every building is detachable from the land; IE it is attached to its foundations, by twistlocks, like intermodal containers, with the utilities also being supplied via some standardised connector. WHAT? This is ridiculous. What happens if someone buys the land out from under your skyscraper, and you can't afford to move it a couple blocks over? Do you live in a LEGO world?
- ajb 1y ago
  It's a thought experiment, being angry at it doesn't add any value.

giantg2 1y ago

You could technically separate the house from the land using separate deeds and deed restrictions. That could create an interesting workaround that would effectively render the value of the land useless for most lots, thus avoiding the taxes.

beeflet 1y ago

>But just because my land is worth £100k doesn't mean I should be forced to sell the house that is on it for only £100k! Then you could "value" the land at £200k and pay a higher property tax to secure that preference. In other words, your property is more valuable, to you. >If you must have that sort of system, there probably ought to be an obligation on the buyer to first pay to have the entire existing structure demolished. I think you are right, which is a problem. Or you could stipulate that all the buildings are demolished before the land bought in this manner is used. I think this system would evolve into people overvaluing their land to be between the land and the land+building value, and then keeping a public offer for the land+building value. That strategy would minimize the land-only sales and encourage buyers to buy the entire building instead.

jstanley 1y ago
> In other words, your property is more valuable, to you. That's fine, but then it becomes a property tax rather than a land value tax.