Yeah, because the value of your land just went up and you didn't do anything to make that happen. Only right that excess value goes back to society and reduces the tax burden of the working class.
If you're a professional landowner and investor, and the taxes on one parcel of land in your portfolio went up because someone built Disneyland near it, this is fine. You might want to sell that parcel out of your portfolio now; or you might want to do something like build a hotel on it catering to Disneyland-visitors, which will earn you enough in profits to more than make up for the higher land tax.
If you're an ordinary person who owns the home you live in, and they build Disneyland next to it, most of the ways that the value of the land your home is on increases are useless or actively harmful to you. It's actively bad for you if you have to sell your family home and move somewhere else because you can no longer afford the taxes on it. You're probably not a professional real estate developer who knows how to effectively use the land as an investment, after all, you just wanted to live somewhere stable.
In fact, the increase of value of your land and the consequent tax increase under Georgist land value schemes, would be so bad for you, that you might decide to protestthe construction of that Disneyland to begin with. This is typically called "NIMBYism", and it happens all the time even under current property-tax schemes because the negative externalities of many different types of construction are bad for the quality of life of existing homeowners.
How is this different from just having higher taxes on capital gains? (Obviously higher capital gains taxes would also impact other assets, but I mean in the context of land. Seems like both result in the same effect if you're able to defer LVT until sale.)
> How is this different from just having higher taxes on capital gains?
The goal of the deferment is to stop a negative outcome (the resident being forced to sell their property because of higher LVT taxes) from occurring until the resident actually wants to do so.
Seems like a huge risk, what if the land then deprecate after appreciating for a while? You'd owe a lot of money from the appreciation years, but the sale of the house doesn't cover it because it's now depreciated
> It's actively bad for you if you have to sell your family home and move somewhere else because you can no longer afford the taxes on it.
But it's no problem of course that several generations of people currently can never afford to own a home of their own even though they contribute enormously to the economy and to society through their highly productive labour?
Ten times more people have already been forced to move away from where they grew up because of real estate prices than would ever have to be forced to move away because of land value taxes.
A hundred times more people can never afford a home because of real estate prices than would ever have to be forced to sell their homes because of land value taxes.
Or you can.. you know, sell the now expensive property, buy one cheaper which doesn't have such appreciation, and enjoy those sweet money gained by doing nothing (well almost). If you invested in stock and gained significantly, you should also not be taxed more on those gains (and even more in tax progressive regimes in most jurisdictions)? Wealth is wealth at the end, you gain more, you pay taxes.
I get it, people are inherently selfish, most don't want to give back to society more than absolutely minimum to keep them from prison, and this mentality is way more common in US or most of 3rd world than say Europe. But then don't complain when state institutions like public schools and healthcare are utter crap, something about cake and stuff.
Why is it assumed true that individuals do not contribute to the increasing appeal of their neighborhood?
What if I voted for pro-theme park politicians? Or what if I volunteered my time to clean up the community parks and shared space? What if I helped improve the reputation of my child’s school by volunteering and donating to the music department?
My taxes fund the maintenance of public infrastructure and services, and my actions support the civic good. If I vote to be cheap or generous with taxes, or choose to be lazy or ambitious in community support, that all contributes to the desirability of the land around me.
> Why is it assumed true that individuals do not contribute to the increasing appeal of their neighborhood?
Two things are true:
1. I should have been more precise in my language. "You didn't do anything to make that happen" is a useful generality and not a prescription of every single individual in the community. In this case, we're talking about fairness - which I don't actually care much about myself, but is a point that people most often can emotionally identify with. But, to continue, if you're carrying all that water on behalf of your land value, then good for you! You likely have an existing stake in the community, other than the land that you own (maybe the businesses or houses or other property built on that land or you own a local services business). That is great! The fairness comes from owning the finite resource of land, and not something others can provide (housing, businesses, etc.). I hope you do continue to contribute to your local community and increase its appeal!
2. Your fixation on this point reveals a very fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of an LVT (surely partially my fault). It has to do with efficient taxation. Dollar equal, it's better that your taxes come from the value of the fixed resources of your community rather than things that can be increased. Because then you don't have a depressing effect on productivity and the things, other than land, that make your community nice. It's better that you keep more money from the things you _do_ for your community instead of the monopolies you hold in your community.
I disagree with the fundamental premise on both parts.
> "You didn't do anything to make that happen" is a useful generality and not a prescription of every single individual in the community.
In fact, everyone does contribute, positively or negatively, to their community. Either through involvement or absenteeism, or somewhere in between.
> Your fixation on this point reveals a very fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of an LVT
The goal is obvious and not a misunderstanding. The goal is a bad goal, precisely because it punishes positive involvement in the community. To improve the community means to increase your own cost of staying.
Imagine someone wants to avoid displacement due to their taxes increasing beyond their ability to pay. I don’t know why they would want to stay in their economically “inefficient” house, but perhaps it’s because home is where the heart is and they have sentimental attachment to their home.
If they want to keep your housing costs down, the best thing to do is poison the ground (metaphorically or literally) because it decreases the “productivity” of the land. Box stores in America famously pay low property taxes because building a box store actually decreases property values - they’re expensive to demolish and limited in utility, while being an eye sore that makes the neighborhood higher traffic and less undesirable. Mississippi as a state is cheap because the voters used the government to destroy public services - it’s in someone’s best interest to do this in a Georgism world if they don’t want to be regularly displaced.
Quite the contrary, it rewards positive involvement in the community and it punishes anti social involvement in the community (leaving your lot empty, letting your neighbors create a vibrant community you do not contribute to, and then selling at a large profit anyway). The reward is the taxes you're not paying on the positive productivity you're bringing to your community (which is how we're currently punishing those who make their communities nicer).
> If they want to keep your housing costs down, the best thing to do is poison the ground (metaphorically or literally) because it decreases the “productivity” of the land
Yes, if you collapse multi-dimensional problems into a single dimension you can find many logical oddities. If I wanted an easier time finding a doctors appointment, I should murder every non healthcare professional in my local area until all of their calendars are totally clear. Wanting cheaper healthcare is evil! You're really saying things for the sake of saying them and I'm not going to engage further or explain to you when you're saying irrelevant things.
> it’s in someone’s best interest to do this in a Georgism world if they don’t want to be regularly displaced.
Under the majority of proposed LVT policies (and the ones I support) the vast majority of American housing would see a decrease in net property taxes paid since the majority of American's Building / Land value ratio is orders of magnitude higher than the average parking lot, land speculator, etc.
> I should murder every non healthcare professional
Crazy comparison to Walmarts lowering their own property tax because building a Walmart makes future land use less attractive.
(Same thing applies to gas stations which do literally poison their own land)
> I'm not going to engage further or explain to you when you're saying irrelevant things.
Don’t engage that’s fine, but I gave a specific example of a common way to use land (box stores), which explicitly breaks the LVT model. People today use land for many economic activities that are expensive to repurpose, or impose negative externalities.
"the value of your land just went up and you didn't do anything to make that happen"
Ben, with that argument, when someone wants to pay you $1M for "bengarcia.dev", you would not take it because you didn't do anything other than pay $12 to the registrar.
I was pointing to the argument that "you didn't do anything to make it happen. Only right that excess value goes back to society and reduces the tax burden of the working class."
Sounds like Obama's "If you’ve got a business, you didn't build that" argument (though Obama might have just screwed up the words, or maybe he simply had a Kinsley gaffe, aka a Freudian Slip).
The land owner DID work for it. He BOUGHT that land (and also the option that it could go up, or down, in value) with the sweat of his hard earned work or savings, or that of their family or business partners.
OP's wording states that he would favor confiscating value generated by the acquisition if such value happened because the market's perceived value increased.
It's basically a communist wealth redistribution logic.
My point is that if someone were to offer $1M for OP's "bengarcia.dev" domain, that OP would not send $999,988 ($1M minus $12 bucks of registration) to the Federal Government.
Yes Ben, The US Government IS READY TO TAKE YOUR GIFT!
Are you making the argument that land banking is economically productive? Or a more esoteric point about the how people "earn" money? Because land banking is economically unproductive, and there isn't much dispute about that. I'm much less interested in a philosophical argument about whether you believe land banking is definitionally money earned or realised.
“land banking is economically unproductive, and there isn't much dispute about that”
I think you are confusing current utilization with economic productivity. There is an opportunity cost in hoding the land but land can also have economic value in the option. It’s the owner choice if he values its use even if it’s waiting for the option to come through and values it more than whatever alternative a self professed smart politician or OP’s abstract “society” might propose.
Whats’s next? Taxing you for your unused bedrooms, unused cars, unused clothes in your closet, unused nose rings, etc etc?
Just because some policymaker can identify a more productive use for someone’s property does not mean the policymaker knows the owner’s opportunity cost or future options or even risk better than the land owner.
An even better argument might be why do we need to tax at all? It’s not that governments are the pinnacle of capital allocation efficiency. After some useful level, governments are basically corruption machines ESPECIALLY IN CALIFORNIA. Just look at their homeless and illegals industrial complex.
Liquidity is a value of its own. 10% equity in a $1M non-fungible residentially-zoned lot is much less valuable than $100K in cash, ready to wire at a moment's notice.
That article is ridiculous “More expensive tomorrow, more affordable today”. It reads like a predatory credit card offer and is full of what if’s.
High property taxes pushing down the sales price of a house does not help the buyer or seller. The buyer is going to pay the same, just more in taxes vs the loan, and the seller is going to get less because high taxes have reduced the value of their home.
