3 ms·

>the states with highest property taxes (New Jersey, New Hampshire) don't seem to be the economic powerhouses compared to the states with ultra-low property rat

>the states with highest property taxes (New Jersey, New Hampshire) don't seem to be the economic powerhouses compared to the states with ultra-low property rates as the theory would imply These are property taxes, not land taxes, unless the article is lumping them. A property tax doesn't provide incentives for more efficient use of land, on the contrary actually. Even if they were land taxes, they would be way too small for a meaningful difference. Also the biggest effect would come from replacing income tax with land tax, as the most productive people would gain the most, and presumably invest the gain in whatever productive thing they're doing. >For one, he took the opportunity risk of locking his liquid capital into a piece of land >For two, he took on the appreciation risk There's nothing valuable in risk. Your argument works even better for buying a piece of a rock for a million dollars and expecting profits, as the opportunity risk and appreciation risk are way higher than buying a piece of land.

prostoalex 12y ago
> These are property taxes, not land taxes, unless the article is lumping them. I am not sure I understand. The property tax in the US is the tax on land + additions, both subjects to appraised value, so yes, the rates listed do include both. > Also the biggest effect would come from replacing income tax with land tax, as the most productive people would gain the most How would this be sustainable for farmers or ranchers? If they have to radically increase their prices to account for new 30% land value tax, does the society benefit or lose? > There's nothing valuable in risk. He provided liquidity to the market when somebody was willing to sell that piece of land. If you're taxing someone for providing liquidity, the price of the underlying good will plummet, as that removes incentives for current buyers, and then you're back to square one - low tax revenues collected from land owners. > Your argument works even better for buying a piece of a rock for a million dollars and expecting profits People do invest in gold and silver.
- duckingtest 12y ago
  >I am not sure I understand. The property tax in the US is the tax on land + additions, both subjects to appraised value, so yes, the rates listed do include both. Land tax is a tax on a value of unimproved land only [0] >How would this be sustainable for farmers or ranchers? If they have to radically increase their prices to account for new 30% land value tax, does the society benefit or lose? Why would it change anything? The land prices would just fall so that the net result would be neutral for average farmer. >He provided liquidity to the market when somebody was willing to sell that piece of land Land tax increases liquidity drastically by making it much more expensive to hoard it. >and then you're back to square one - low tax revenues collected from land owners. It's not back to square one - it's a situation in which people with more productive use of land can get it much more cheaply. Think of a situation in which a prime residential city land costs one average annual wage. >People do invest in gold and silver. People do many weird things. https://images.angelpub.com/2014/17/24245/returns-on-stocks-bonds-gold.gif https://images.angelpub.com/2014/17/24245/returns-on-stocks-... [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

prostoalex 12y ago

> These are property taxes, not land taxes, unless the article is lumping them. I am not sure I understand. The property tax in the US is the tax on land + additions, both subjects to appraised value, so yes, the rates listed do include both. > Also the biggest effect would come from replacing income tax with land tax, as the most productive people would gain the most How would this be sustainable for farmers or ranchers? If they have to radically increase their prices to account for new 30% land value tax, does the society benefit or lose? > There's nothing valuable in risk. He provided liquidity to the market when somebody was willing to sell that piece of land. If you're taxing someone for providing liquidity, the price of the underlying good will plummet, as that removes incentives for current buyers, and then you're back to square one - low tax revenues collected from land owners. > Your argument works even better for buying a piece of a rock for a million dollars and expecting profits People do invest in gold and silver.

duckingtest 12y ago
>I am not sure I understand. The property tax in the US is the tax on land + additions, both subjects to appraised value, so yes, the rates listed do include both. Land tax is a tax on a value of unimproved land only [0] >How would this be sustainable for farmers or ranchers? If they have to radically increase their prices to account for new 30% land value tax, does the society benefit or lose? Why would it change anything? The land prices would just fall so that the net result would be neutral for average farmer. >He provided liquidity to the market when somebody was willing to sell that piece of land Land tax increases liquidity drastically by making it much more expensive to hoard it. >and then you're back to square one - low tax revenues collected from land owners. It's not back to square one - it's a situation in which people with more productive use of land can get it much more cheaply. Think of a situation in which a prime residential city land costs one average annual wage. >People do invest in gold and silver. People do many weird things. https://images.angelpub.com/2014/17/24245/returns-on-stocks-bonds-gold.gif https://images.angelpub.com/2014/17/24245/returns-on-stocks-... [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax