3 ms·

We tend to own property in places where land is expensive, we'd be paying hefty taxes in a Georgist system.

reverius42 1mo ago
It would also help incentivize real improved use of expensive property, and less speculative investment without improvement, perhaps leading to lower prices (thus lower land value, and lower taxes), perhaps reaching some kind of equilibrium with better improved land use in expensive areas, less speculation resulting in the expensive areas being less expensive, and more equitable taxation than our current system.
- estearum 1mo ago
  Yes basically you should expect to see significant densification with significant competition in how appealing to the market you can make that level of density (since you as the developer keep all the upside).
  - s1artibartfast 1mo ago
    I would actually expect to see a reduction in densification if a LVT is more expensive than current property taxes. While it obviously encourages putting high value land to greater use, it also encourages avoiding high value land itself. If the tax burden of your San Francisco house or office doubles, you may look into relocating to where land is cheaper. It obviously depends on the rates.
s1artibartfast 1mo ago
I would expect that land usage favors the very rich, but not nearly as much as income. Georgism does a excellent job of incentivising better land use, but is trivial to shelter income from. A teacher renting a run down aprtment might have a similar land tax footprint to a tech ceo in a taller building, or maybe the ceo just teleworks from home in Wyoming. xAI or whomever puts their next Mega server farm on undesirable land, and then operates basically tax-free. The end of day problem with the Georgist theory is that we now live in a knowledge and information economy, not an industrial one governed by material inputs. Changing a 1 to a 0 on a string of bits might yeild a billion dollar profit, but requires no material overhead.
- estearum 1mo ago
  You seem to think the point of a taxation scheme is to tax everything. It's not. It's to 1) fund services while 2) minimizing distortions. If someone can consume land of no value and produce huge amounts of value from it, that's a good thing. They should be entitled to as much upside as they can produce.
  - s1artibartfast 1mo ago
    Im more a small goverment type. That said, the point of a taxation scheme is not to "minimize distortions". If you think that is important, thats fine, but it isn't a commonly held position. Funnily, It is mostly Georgists that think it is a very important property of a tax.
    - wat10000 1mo ago
      I'm curious as to how a small government type would be so derisive toward the idea of a goal of minimizing distortions in taxation. "Minimize distortions" is another way of saying that the tax minimizes government interference in the economy. Seems like exactly the sort of thing a small government type would want.
      - s1artibartfast 1mo ago
        I see the two as completely independent, and I think proportionality overrides non-distortion. I dont care if a tax has zero distortion when it is levied predominantly on one person to benefit another, or levied on the masses to benefit the few. Those who get the lion's share of the benefit should carry the lion's share of the cost. Distortion has a very specific economic meaning which has nothing to do with who benefits and how much. For example, a fuel tax to fund highway maintenance is distortionary but appropriate in my view. Paying for the cost of wear and tear is a "distortion", because it changes the amount consumed. I argue that the cost of maintaining and building roads should factor into road consumption decisions! Another example, If people want to live in remote fire-prone areas, they should pay more taxes to account for the higher state costs of infrastructure and safety, not fewer taxes because the land is cheaper than urban zones. The people driving the cost would be disconnected from the burden, and incentivized to drive them higher! Distortion is a feature, not a bug.

It would also help incentivize real improved use of expensive property, and less speculative investment without improvement, perhaps leading to lower prices (thus lower land value, and lower taxes), perhaps reaching some kind of equilibrium with better improved land use in expensive areas, less speculation resulting in the expensive areas being less expensive, and more equitable taxation than our current system.

estearum 1mo ago
Yes basically you should expect to see significant densification with significant competition in how appealing to the market you can make that level of density (since you as the developer keep all the upside).
- s1artibartfast 1mo ago
  I would actually expect to see a reduction in densification if a LVT is more expensive than current property taxes. While it obviously encourages putting high value land to greater use, it also encourages avoiding high value land itself. If the tax burden of your San Francisco house or office doubles, you may look into relocating to where land is cheaper. It obviously depends on the rates.

s1artibartfast 1mo ago

I would expect that land usage favors the very rich, but not nearly as much as income. Georgism does a excellent job of incentivising better land use, but is trivial to shelter income from. A teacher renting a run down aprtment might have a similar land tax footprint to a tech ceo in a taller building, or maybe the ceo just teleworks from home in Wyoming. xAI or whomever puts their next Mega server farm on undesirable land, and then operates basically tax-free. The end of day problem with the Georgist theory is that we now live in a knowledge and information economy, not an industrial one governed by material inputs. Changing a 1 to a 0 on a string of bits might yeild a billion dollar profit, but requires no material overhead.

estearum 1mo ago
You seem to think the point of a taxation scheme is to tax everything. It's not. It's to 1) fund services while 2) minimizing distortions. If someone can consume land of no value and produce huge amounts of value from it, that's a good thing. They should be entitled to as much upside as they can produce.
- s1artibartfast 1mo ago
  Im more a small goverment type. That said, the point of a taxation scheme is not to "minimize distortions". If you think that is important, thats fine, but it isn't a commonly held position. Funnily, It is mostly Georgists that think it is a very important property of a tax.
  - wat10000 1mo ago
    I'm curious as to how a small government type would be so derisive toward the idea of a goal of minimizing distortions in taxation. "Minimize distortions" is another way of saying that the tax minimizes government interference in the economy. Seems like exactly the sort of thing a small government type would want.
    - s1artibartfast 1mo ago
      I see the two as completely independent, and I think proportionality overrides non-distortion. I dont care if a tax has zero distortion when it is levied predominantly on one person to benefit another, or levied on the masses to benefit the few. Those who get the lion's share of the benefit should carry the lion's share of the cost. Distortion has a very specific economic meaning which has nothing to do with who benefits and how much. For example, a fuel tax to fund highway maintenance is distortionary but appropriate in my view. Paying for the cost of wear and tear is a "distortion", because it changes the amount consumed. I argue that the cost of maintaining and building roads should factor into road consumption decisions! Another example, If people want to live in remote fire-prone areas, they should pay more taxes to account for the higher state costs of infrastructure and safety, not fewer taxes because the land is cheaper than urban zones. The people driving the cost would be disconnected from the burden, and incentivized to drive them higher! Distortion is a feature, not a bug.