291–300 of 910 posts
* Original book review: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-progress-a...
* Follow-up part 1: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/does-georgism-work-is-land-...
* Part 2: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/does-georgism-work-part-2-c...
* Part 3: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/does-georgism-work-part-3-c...
The first review is very much worth a read--well written, entertaining, and informative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I shouldn't have to pay rent for owning land That land is provided ongoing services, security, and utilities which cost money each year to maintain. Ownership is not some fundamental law of physics. It's a made up concept which is defined however the society you live in wants to define it.
> That land is provided ongoing services, security, and utilities which cost money each year to maintain Yeah, and I already pay PG&E, Comcrap, and whoever else is maintaining those services, I don't need to pay it again to the IRS. The IRS wouldn't do jack shit on land I own.
Do you think all these things just magically exist?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve heard economists champion the idea, but I’ve heard little talk about what the tradeoffs are. What are the downsides?
The main downside is that you end up essentially kicking people out if their land gets too valuable. You can always provide an exception though, for a primary residence where the increase in taxes would be burdensome on the owner's income.
Perhaps someone who has thought about this more can explain how a 'land value tax' differs from existing property tax regimes that explicitly examine the value of improvements and the value of land... This Detroit case is interesting because there are different rates of taxation on the land, but the difference in rate could also be obtained by increasing the land component of a parcel's value.
They are loading the tax burden on the land rather than on structures. So, you can build the Taj Mahal or leave the lot a burned out wreck-- either way you pay the same tax. Many comments on the thread overstate what this is. I happen to think it's interesting, but for reasons unrelated to the article-- it's kinda goofy for the state to tax personal property that happens to be fixed to a location, like a fireplace, s…
Child of lifelong Detroiter here. iirc a big problem in detroit is some ultra wealth like Matty Moroun owning a huge portion of the land and just sitting on it, doing nothing with it. If that's still true, the LVT makes plenty of sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> difficulty in valuing the land. It's rather easy to value the land: Have the owner decide what it's worth, then they pay a tax as a percentage of that valuation. Now, obviously given that system everyone's going to value their land at $0. To adjust for that land owners must be obligated to sell their land to anyone willing to buy it at the declared valuation. Such a mechanism doesn't only keep the current owners ho…
This does not pass basic scrutiny unless the plan is to ruin average homeowners that valued their assets at fair market value. Essentially, you want to force asset owners to write an at-the-money call option against their assets, and then adding insult to injury by not paying them an offsetting risk premium. I don't know how any moral person could be a proponent of the kinds of abuse and profitable exploitation of av…
Yes, you would be forcing people to write a call option. It doesn't have to be at-the-money. Owners just pick a price that they'd be happy to sell at. Not some mystical 'fair market value' that would ruin them.
Of course, land owners would want to keep their tax bill low, so picking the right price to declare is a trade-off.
> [...] and then adding insult to injury by not paying them an offsetting risk premium.
Please be more careful in your reasoning! You are right that the call option is worth a premium. But that obligation to write the call option comes with ownership of the land, so we can just treat it as another (small) tax on the land. The market price of the land adjusts so that the yearly benefit from owning the land is pretty close to the yearly cost of capital plus sum of all taxes.
To simplify: the option premium is automatically offset by lower LVT payments.
> I don't know how any moral person could be a proponent of the kinds of abuse and profitable exploitation of average people this proposal would trivially enable.
Please elaborate. But please refrain from assuming that landowners are morons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I come from Western Massachusetts, which is characterized by smaller populations and lower budgetary allocations. The most significant budget item in most municipalities here is education, followed by road maintenance, which is often extremely costly. In Massachusetts, the basic cost estimate for repaving a standard road is approximately $1 million per mile, and this investment typically only lasts about a decade bef…
> Bridges are even more financially burdensome. Recently, we replaced a culvert that was so small I could easily jump over it, and yet it set us back $700,000. Why? Why didn't you all agree to go down to Home Depot and load up on one big short metal pipe and some cement if that's the case? How was 700K spent?
- Environmental regulations requiring NEPA analysis or categorical exclusion
- State laws on who can perform road construction
- Construction codes for roadways and bridges
- Miscellaneous overhead for other areas (e.g., Human Resources, accounting, etc)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> difficulty in valuing the land. It's rather easy to value the land: Have the owner decide what it's worth, then they pay a tax as a percentage of that valuation. Now, obviously given that system everyone's going to value their land at $0. To adjust for that land owners must be obligated to sell their land to anyone willing to buy it at the declared valuation. Such a mechanism doesn't only keep the current owners ho…
Given the friction (inconvenience) in having to move house/business etc, that hardly seems fair. It also defeats the object of land ownership if you can be kicked off it at any time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Property taxes and wealth taxes undermine property rights in ways that normal income taxes don’t. If I earn $100 and pay tax on it, whatever’s left over is mine forever, and I never have to pay tax on that income again. If I buy $100 worth of property, I have to pay tax on it again every year forever, which basically means I’m only buying the right to rent it from the government in perpetuity. Your use of the phrase…
> If I earn $100 and pay tax on it, whatever’s left over is mine forever, and I never have to pay tax on that income again. You know that this is not true in most places? If you put a hundred dollar bill under your pillow, it will be worth less and less as time goes by thanks to inflation. And if you use that hundred dollar bill to buy an asset that hopefully keeps its real value, you pay capital gains taxes on the n…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> difficulty in valuing the land. It's rather easy to value the land: Have the owner decide what it's worth, then they pay a tax as a percentage of that valuation. Now, obviously given that system everyone's going to value their land at $0. To adjust for that land owners must be obligated to sell their land to anyone willing to buy it at the declared valuation. Such a mechanism doesn't only keep the current owners ho…
I don't love this idea, and I suspect many others wouldn't either. If you raised your family in a house and have lived there for decades, it has intangible value to you, but not others. Yet because of this value, you must pay potentially much much more than your neighbor, who objectively speaking may have a lot of equal value. What's more, even if you pay more than you ought to, you'll never feel secure in your home,…
That can already happen right now with conventional property taxes..