Live data from Hacker News

Detroit wants to be the first big American city to tax land value

economist.com

611–620 of 910 posts

Re: Detroit wants to be the first big American city to tax land value

#611

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.

Land prices go up when poeple have more mooney and go down when people have less. The root cause is that land is unique in the economy because it both cannot be manufactured and cannot be moved. Each piece of land is therefore unique and no one can increase supply in response to demand. Renting or purchasing land is essentially an auction and the price is set by the highest bidder. Economists call this a "monopoly price" because it's the same effect you would get if someone has a monopoly and can raise prices at will. This is in contrast to competitive prices which sink lower and lower until they bump up against the actual cost of getting the work done to provide that product or service.

Land value is therefore a really weird part of the economy that allows people to charge money without doing any work or providing any value in return. If we confiscate all the money people charge to rent or buy land, nothing changes because no work was ever happening. The land is still there and still just as useful. Contrast that with anything where work is actually done - the industry would collapse if you confiscate the money. Taxing land value therefore allows the government to reclaim the money which those people should not be able to charge in the first place (if there was free market competition). When this happens, counter-intuitively, land prices do not rise (because the highest bid in the auction doesn't change) and there is no negative affect on production or jobs (because no one is employed to manufacture or maintain land). We know this because economic theory predicts it and various countries have already tried it. Instead, other taxes can be cut or eliminated due to the enourmous boost in government income, which has very positive effects on the rest of the economy. Understanding how this works is deeply counter-intuitive and so people usually think that a shortage of buildings is driving property/land values because it's easy to make sense of.

To directly answer your question: if you tax the land value as set by the current market, you don't have to worry about assessing other factors that SHOULD lead to higher taxes because the people trying to buy the land have already done that. That's why they are offering a higher price. It's simple and therefore cheap and easy to administer. Also essentially immune to tax dodging because you can't hide the asset.

Re: Detroit wants to be the first big American city to tax land value

#612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land value tax is an idea by Henry George - the guy who coined the phrase "the rent is too damn high". His idea is among other things that a property tax discourages investment - one way to make money as an investor is to hold a plot of empty land in a desirable city centre location, watch it go up in value, and neither pay tax on any development on it nor bother with messy things such as tenants. Taxing the land val…

I don't understand how that needs a special tax though. Wouldn't the more obvious choice be to just tax all wealth/assets? E.g. where I live it's just assumed that all your assets produce a yield of 4% yearly, and that is taxed as regular income. Makes the tax declaration also a lot easier, since people don't have to list all exact dividends and profits they might have gotten from investments.

It might at some level, but taxing all assets would disincentivize the creation of new assets. For most assets we probably don't want that - we probably want more home construction for instance.

Taxing land only disincentivizes land from being hoarded and being used inefficiently. It's not going to prevent the creation of new land.

Theres also the issue of fairness. Land owners didn't create the land or make it valuable. They just use it to extract rents. Asset creators did make their assets valuable and if they do rent them the value of the rents will be in proportion to the value of the work they put into them.

Re: Detroit wants to be the first big American city to tax land value

#613

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.

Land value tax is an idea by Henry George - the guy who coined the phrase "the rent is too damn high". His idea is among other things that a property tax discourages investment - one way to make money as an investor is to hold a plot of empty land in a desirable city centre location, watch it go up in value, and neither pay tax on any development on it nor bother with messy things such as tenants. Taxing the land val…

If you want to tax properties, why not taxing both the land and what is build upon it?

And wardrobes, tables, books or computers (every year) but that's another story.

Re: Detroit wants to be the first big American city to tax land value

#614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The benefit is the land you own is now more valuable.

This benefit is hypothetical as long as you are not selling your land. So, up to the point where you would actually sell your land, LVT is simply a liability. Even if eventually you sell are not guranteed to actually make the amount implied by the LVT you have been paying. Let's think about what structures and incentives and ways of thinking we would foster here. Everyone a property speculator! That worked out so wel…

The point of LVT is to punish you if you could sell for less. That is if you own a small house next to sky scrapers, if you would sell someone would snatch up your house, tear it down, and build another sky scrapper.

Which is also why I don't think it helps Detroit today as they don't have the problem problem of land that someone else would build up on

Re: Detroit wants to be the first big American city to tax land value

#615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how that needs a special tax though. Wouldn't the more obvious choice be to just tax all wealth/assets? E.g. where I live it's just assumed that all your assets produce a yield of 4% yearly, and that is taxed as regular income. Makes the tax declaration also a lot easier, since people don't have to list all exact dividends and profits they might have gotten from investments.

The problem is, what if it doesn't produce that much? What if it doesn't produce anything? Imagine someone buying a house somewhere cheap. Then some gentrification, a new microsoft campus built nearby, etc., and the price of the house jumps 10x+. You're on a fixed income, and your taxes are now higher then you can afford. If you have multiple houses, sure, tax the second, third, etc. one (evn though the taxes are the…

One way you could look at it is that this person's inability to afford the land value tax signals that they are not making effective use of the land and that it would be in society's best interest if the land were to change hands to someone who could use it in a way that lets them afford the taxes on it.

Re: Detroit wants to be the first big American city to tax land value

#616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land value tax is an idea by Henry George - the guy who coined the phrase "the rent is too damn high". His idea is among other things that a property tax discourages investment - one way to make money as an investor is to hold a plot of empty land in a desirable city centre location, watch it go up in value, and neither pay tax on any development on it nor bother with messy things such as tenants. Taxing the land val…

Is that the problem though? Empty land held by speculators?

Even if a plot of land isn't literally empty, the ideal behind a land value tax is that it incentivizes maximal utilization of land.

Re: Detroit wants to be the first big American city to tax land value

#617

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.

So my house is worth 500k, someone looking for house in range 500k-700k, really really likes my house and just kicks me out for 750k? Sounds like terrible idea.

If you really don't like the idea of that happening, you can always self-declare a higher value. Then, not only is it less likley someone chooses your land to buy, but also if it does happen you get more compensation. But then you'll also have to pay matching higher property taxes.

Re: Detroit wants to be the first big American city to tax land value

#619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human beings have to live somewhere and gathering them together in a small urban footprint is better for the climate, not worse.

How do those small urban footprints survive though? They bring in outside resources, external zing the impact elsewhere and adding in the cost of transporting goods into and waste out of the urban centers. There isn't a magic answer to it, but simply saying dense areas use less footprint for shelter ignores all the other necessities and conveniences consumed by the people living there.

Yes but the sewage from a block of flats takes less transportation for the equivalent amount of people living in suburbs with thousands of square m for a single house

Re: Detroit wants to be the first big American city to tax land value

#620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land value tax is an idea by Henry George - the guy who coined the phrase "the rent is too damn high". His idea is among other things that a property tax discourages investment - one way to make money as an investor is to hold a plot of empty land in a desirable city centre location, watch it go up in value, and neither pay tax on any development on it nor bother with messy things such as tenants. Taxing the land val…

If you want to tax properties, why not taxing both the land and what is build upon it? And wardrobes, tables, books or computers (every year) but that's another story.

The idea is that you tax the land only as if it was being used for best use - so that every property is encouraged to develop to maximum density.

I suspect that in actual use it would end up having a small to no effect.

Post reply on HN