5 ms·

I don't wish to be confrontational, but in my view, taking other people's property without their voluntary consent is wrong. As I understand the last paragraph

• krschultz 12y ago
  That the value of land is substantially based on the environment around it, one that is largely driven by societal factors. 1 acre of land in Manhattan is extremely expensive. 1 acre of land 20 miles north of Manhattan is not expensive. The difference is everything surrounding the land. If the people in a community have decided to spend a lot of their money to reduce crime, improve transit, improve schools, and improve the economy, every land owner benefits. Yet the way that we do taxes (based on the improved value of the land), means that those that sit on the sidelines and do nothing gain quite a bit of value by freeloading on those around them. If we figured out the taxes based on the underlying value of the land, then the vacant lot owner would be paying as much as the person that just invested in building a new business next store. That seems fairer to me considering that the vacant lot is now worth more due to its proximity to a shiny new building.
  • jes 12y ago
    Thank you for your comment, and for obviously being concerned with issues of fairness. If a person makes an investment, and that investment goes up in value, even substantially, and even with no additional effort on the part of the investor, does that justify others taking some or all of the resulting value? If I bought stock in Apple years ago, because I thought it was a smart thing to do, and I simply held the stock, should other people get a cut of my gains when I sell? What if the stock goes down? Am I then entitled to someone else's gains?
    • mikeklaas 12y ago
      1. Yes, that's what capital gains taxes are 2. No, but you can use the losses to offset future gains without paying tax (you aren't penalized for an asset depreciating then re-appreciating)
    • deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    • krschultz 12y ago
      You're basically arguing against property taxes or capital gain taxes entirely. Our existing property taxes are measured against the improved (built-up) value of the land. An alternative would be property taxes against the unimproved value of the land. The latter are often called "land taxes". I personally think land taxes are better than as-built property taxes because they encourage investment. If you assume that lower taxes are an incentive, we currently are giving land owners an incentive not to invest in their property. Society as large actually wants land owners to invest in their properties. If you want to argue that land owners shouldn't be taxed at all, fine, but they are currently being taxed.
      • jes 12y ago
        Yes, I am arguing against taxes. I'm against taking things by force from other people, which is what taxation appears to be, as I understand it. You are correct, of course, that land owners are taxed. I don't expect to live to see the day when most people realize that initiating force against others is counterproductive. But I do think it's helpful to look into the essentials of things. Thank you for a good discussion. It has helped me to clarify my own thinking.
        • Apes 12y ago
          I went into a Burger King and asked for a Burger. They generously provided said burger, but then asked that I provide them with money. I told them that I appreciated their burger, but that I would not be providing them with any money at this time. When they told me that I didn't have a choice, I was outraged and offended! How dare they try to take something from me unwillingly! I immediately called the police and informed them of the harassment that I was undergoing. But the police also demanded that I give up my money! This is why the government is corrupt! It should be _MY CHOICE_ as to when and how I give out my money!
  • logfromblammo 12y ago
    I suggest that the underlying value of the land is zero, or so close to it as to be statistically insignificant. The market value of land is overwhelmingly dominated by proximity to improvements. If you subtract the value of improvements on the land itself from the market value, you are still left with the value of being near the improvements on all surrounding properties. The true underlying value is the value it would have if you picked up the land with a god's hand and plopped it down in the middle of nowhere, in a land devoid of people and far from roads or rivers. Does it have valuable natural or mineral resources on or under it? Does it have energy production potential? Fresh water? Historical significance? No? It's worth zero. People drive the economy. Land only has value to the extent that it does not present barriers between you and your trade partners. No one wants to live atop the mountain if the funicular is not built. No one wants to live across the lake if there are no boats, docks, and piers. No one wants to live deep in the forest if the road into it has not yet been cleared. How then do you calculate a land tax fairly? Surface area alone? Population density data from the census?
    • staybailey 12y ago
      Actually it isn't that hard. The land value is simply the property value minus the value of the depreciated physical capital (buildings etc.) on it (LV = PV - K). This calculation is already done in the market in order to determine the size of a home owners insurance policy. Property tax values aren't ideally precise, but are already common enough that replacing them with and land value tax wouldn't greatly impact tax code precision. To address your more general critique, it might be better said that you are paying a location tax as opposed to a land tax. Specific locations have particular value and until we develop hand of god technology, putting multiple units of land in a given location will be impossible. So land vs. location is really just a semantic difference.
      • logfromblammo 12y ago
        You either didn't read my entire comment or chose to talk past it. I said that the result of your calculation (LV = PV - K) actually still includes the value of improvements adjacent to or near the property. The value of some improvements bleed across property lines. As such, that result still represents the improved value of land. Roads increase the value of lands adjacent to the road, even if they are not on the land itself. Parks and greenways increase the value of land within a certain distance. Schools increase value. Shopping centers increase value. Police stations, fire protection stations, restaurants, theaters, museums, public transportation, and other improvements all affect the value of living near those improvements. There is even some value in living next door to an expensive-looking house rather than a shabby one, or an abandoned, empty lot. I contend that if you factor out all those improvements-by-proximity--if you erect a magical barrier that prevents all human influence from passing it--the inherent value of a hectare in a city or suburb is about the same, or perhaps less, than a hectare in the middle of a cornfield--a field without an irrigation system, and far from any roads. For the most part, the inherent value in land is as a place to put the improvements. A location tax does not encourage efficient land use (by discouraging inefficient use). It discourages living closer to other people, which itself is a more efficient use of land. When home is where you hang your hat, people gather around the hatracks. As long as you are taxing desirable location rather than land area, you are addressing the movement of the people rather than the use of the limited resource. If high-density housing is a more efficient use of land than low-density housing (a rhetorical conditional), then it is counterproductive to tax people for being closer together in more efficient cities, rather than less-efficient suburbs.
• omegaworks 12y ago
  >taking other people's property without their voluntary consent is wrong. Knock! knock! Oh Hi Mexico... Toc! Toc! Hola Ohlone Native Americans... Possession is nine-tenths of the law. The law is man-made.
  • jes 12y ago
    I agree, the law is man-made. Seemingly, it is made by men and women who do not care much, if at all, about what is actually right or wrong, what is to the interest of the citizens and what is not. What is actually right and wrong, in my view, is based on the nature and requirements of human life.
    • carapace 12y ago
      If you are looking for sincerity and fair-mindedness few people would advise you to look first among politicians. All human government is an attempt to manage human wickedness. If we were not wicked we would need no laws.
• whybroke 12y ago
  Where did the land owner get the land? In a great many places (such as North America), it was stolen in the not so distance past and a great deal more rudely than taxation. If that act is justified as taking under utilized resources then we are certainly justified in using the more mild pressure of taxation to fix an obviously broken system. Maybe the best idea rather than the impossible task of finding the true owner to create policies that make the world a less effective place, we should tweak land ownership patterns in the interests of efficiency and maximization of net wealth or quality of life. > In other words, you want to substitute your judgment for his, when it comes to the use of his property. It is not unambiguously his property and when there is grotesque under or mis-utilization, yes another judgment is desperately needed such as taxing the owner to compensate for the loss the rest of us are carrying until that loss stops.
• panglott 12y ago
  Everybody who owns property does so in a specific legal context, including taxation. The long-term value of that property certainly depends on the stability of that context. But taxation policy is something that people talk about all the time, to nudge people to do one thing or another, whether it be to save for retirement or whatever. Taxes on externalities are certainly a better way of handling things than explicit regulations, for example.
• Frondo 12y ago
  All laws govern our actions in one way or another. No law is totally free from imposing or preventing a specific action. As for "taking other people's property without their voluntary consent," yes, from one private citizen to another, that is true, stealing is wrong. Extending that idea to cover taxation is also wrong; taxation isn't stealing. Taxation is paying the bill you incur by living in a place with a government that provides you with a wide variety of services.
• rayiner 12y ago
  I think land has probably the least defensible claim to inalienable property. You didn't create it, it'll be here long after you're dead. You have it because the government stole it from a bunch of Indians by force, and it's only the government's continued threat of force that allows you to preserve your claim on it.
  • ashark 12y ago
    To expand on your post: I've noticed that anti-tax and anti-government folks tend to focus on rights that are "natural", yet it seems to me that, if we accept the notion that the "naturalness" of certain rights is both real and a measure of their value, the right to broad access to most land currently held as private is more "natural" than the right to buy far more land than one can personally use while preventing all others from using it in any way, unless (maybe) they pay you for the privilege. The fact that money changed hands and some papers were signed seems irrelevant to the "naturalness" of exclusive access to land, to me—then again, I consider concerns over and arguments revolving around "naturalness" to mostly be a distraction when it comes to figuring out which freedoms I'd prefer to preserve over which others, so maybe I'm a bad judge of these things.
• j_baker 12y ago
  Well yeah of course I want the owner to be forced to act in a way other than what he chooses because the way he chooses to act affects me negatively. That's why we have laws. There are any of a number of things the owner could be doing with the property. For instance, he could build an urban farm and help provide the area with more food. There are property tax incentives for doing as such, but when you're paying less than $1000 a year for property taxes why would you go to the effort? So instead of using the land for something useful, it's blocked off with a chain link fence and laying unused.
  • jes 12y ago
    Do you think force should be used whenever someone else's actions affect us negatively? I agree, there are many things the owner could be doing with his property. I see that as entirely his choice, as long as he is not violating the rights of others. Could you perhaps try talking to the owner of the vacant lot? Maybe you and he (or her) could find a good solution to the problem you perceive.