431–440 of 910 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the governments job to care about that.
It’s the governments job to do literally whatever the voters want it to do. Turns out the majority of voters are not all that interested in defending the piles of unproductive wealth.
Or Ben Franklin, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"
Mob rule doesn't imply ethical or moral.
But then that self declaration gets published in an official register, and anyone offering 1.5x that declared value gets to buy the land without the owners ability to refuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> right but if this is my only piece of land where I live on, I am "the people". I need to live somewhere, I have no choice. It's like asking a prisoner to pay weekly tax for the cell he lives on: He has no choice, he has to live in some cell. Instead tax it intelligently so that I'm exempt for my first and only house on a moderately sized piece of land. We all need to live somewhere bruh, you're not special. If you…
Can you calm down? I didn't say that I was special and I'm not your "bruh". The few super rich people who buy 100 million dollar properties in the middle of a city for personal use as their only home are not the problem. By all means, add a clause so the tax exemption only applies for land values below a threshold. In fact I already thought of this by writing "moderately sized". The solution is never to tax working p…
That implies a size-based exemption, not a value-based one. And that kind of thing is how you get loopholes that the super-rich exploit. Keeping the tax system simple is the only way to do it. Tax all land in proportion to its value, no exceptions.
> The solution is never to tax working people even more just because they want to have a home.
Part of the point of the idea is to (eventually) move away from taxes on working. It's not like having a home is being treated as a special case, and nor should it be. Again: if you're taking the land out of public use, you pay your fair share of tax, in proportion to the value of the land you're monopolising. Keeping the rules simple ultimately benefits the working poor far more than trying to create special case carve outs.
Virtually every effective hedge against inflation is taxed heavily. There is no respite from dilution. When you look at it from that perspective you see a systematic attack against any safe harbor.
Municipal bonds?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
What happens to a lot with an old gas station with leaky tanks? The land is ruined. Land is not fungible.
What happens when there are different agricultural fields with different productivity? Where does economic rent come from in that situation? Ricardo saw LVT as a way to make agriculture fair when some land is fantastic, and other land has very few economic upsides.
Land with environmental problems is like land with a structure with negative value on it. People are still really good at valuing this. Check out home sales of the small 1000sqft cottages in Palo Alto that go for millions; the sale price is pretty much always exactly the cost of the land minus the cost to tear down the cottage.
Gas spills will function similarly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Detroit has blight. LVT addresses property speculators that buy land to sit on it for 10 years and do nothing with it. With LVT they have to either pay up, develop it, or sell it. All options good for the city.
This argument has often confused me when so many people are concerned with global warming. Why should a city incentive land owners to develop and commoditize their land? If we want to reduce human impacts on the planet, why not incentive the opposite and incentive leaving the land natural? Land value taxes prioritize GDP and profit above all else. Isn't that how we got into this mess in the first place?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Detroit has blight. LVT addresses property speculators that buy land to sit on it for 10 years and do nothing with it. With LVT they have to either pay up, develop it, or sell it. All options good for the city.
This argument has often confused me when so many people are concerned with global warming. Why should a city incentive land owners to develop and commoditize their land? If we want to reduce human impacts on the planet, why not incentive the opposite and incentive leaving the land natural? Land value taxes prioritize GDP and profit above all else. Isn't that how we got into this mess in the first place?
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…
Can you legally relinquish ownership of a parcel to no longer have the tax burden of the empty land in a dying city?
One approach to assessing land value is to have the property owner self declare. But then that self declaration gets published in an official register, and anyone offering 1.5x that declared value gets to buy the land without the owners ability to refuse.
I get the idea, but having money shouldn’t mean you should be able to just choose someone’s land and decide its yours.