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.
For a more detailed overview, I recommend Lars Doucet's review of George's Progress and Poverty, which won the Astral Codex Ten book review contest a year ago: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-progress-a...
I really like the style, but you need to put an hour or so aside to read the whole thing. For me, it was definitely worth the time!
That said, "everybody works but the vacant lot" is a Georgist slogan that has been seen on billboards before now: https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47de-036a-a3d9...
You decide if the above is good or bad.
Something like 90% of boomers want to age in place (as opposed to moving in with family, or moving into some assisted living arrangement). This is a problem when that effectively locks up 40% of the housing stock.
Does this "little old lady" need a 1-acre lot for her gardening when she can barely walk to the end of it and back? Or could that lot be parceled up into 4 single-family homes, or dozens of apartment units?
Also: that small house will grow in value (along with the property taxes) until the value of the land almost entirely dominates. My parents are in one such situation -- anyone who would buy their house would assuredly tear it down to build something bigger.
However it’s just not compatible with any concept of freedom, as understood by those people themselves. A lot of people have an expectation of fairness that they ought to be able to own a home of their choosing and stay in it until they’re ready to move (or dead). And they are sentimentally attached to their homes where they raised their children.
We in the West have a society whose framework is roughly aligned with that idea. We could change it, but it would require lots of other “the government knows best” policies, and ultimately the massive empowerment of police to enforce those “best practices” when people object. Even one would agree with the outcomes in housing policy, it would be pretty risky to create that kind of totalitarian situation in general, because we might not like the other “most efficient best practices.”
Edit: by money I mean income. She owns her house because years ago she (with her now dead husband) at one time had enough income to buy and pay off the house. Now that she is retired she has much less income despite having assets like a house that are in theory worth a lot of money that cannot be accessed.
It always seemed crazy to me that nothing was done on that very valuable corner for so long.
There are other examples.
I’m new to town but everyone else tells me that the area has massively improved in the last 5 years. Those lots are wasted potential.
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.
Put another way:
If I have $1B, and I buy $1B of land, that creates no value, and raises prices for everyone.
If I have $1B and I start or fund a company which produces a new medical device, computer, or car, I've created massive economic value, both in the inputs (hiring people) and outputs (new technology).
Land is also a scarce resource we all need to share fairly (for whatever 'fairly' means). If you have more, everyone else has less. On the other hand, if you're investing in making movies, I can make my own movies too. There is no fundamental limit to that sort of economic growth.
Most people won't care about some Rolex that someone around the world is willing to pay $100K for.
Land has purposeful value rather than just 'worth'
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 then charged as higher rents if you lease those properties), but the first, primary residence should not be taxed as a "profit maker".
Maybe it's a cultural difference, but here in the balkans, people rarely move, and telling a 75yo grandma that she'll have to move, since her socialist built apartment is now worth 500k eur+, because "investors" want it for airbnb, and she cannot afford taxes on it, is just evil.
It's the society's best interest that people can afford places to live and not live under threat that some new fad will make something they already own (and need to survive) unaffordable.
In your example, if the grandma's house went from 200k to a 1million, then she isn't poor anymore. She is very rich.
She doesn't have to leave the neighborhood. She can give her house away for redevelopment into a condo. Get the nice penthouse flat and a pretty penny on the same land. Now, she has enough liquidity to pay the land value tax, which is also lower per person because it's distributed over the whole condo.
This is happening in India right now. Apartments are redeveloped into towers. Old residents get 2x the floor space and decent relocation $$ for the construction period. No one is being kicked out of their house. Most people move to another spot within a 10 minutes walk from their home for 3 years and then come back when the building is done.
Are we seriously saying that if someone can no longer afford tax on a land they already own because the rich need to get richer, you should sell?
Basically you're asking for normal people to work, get raises forever and hope nothing crazy happens that can raise land value in their neighborhood in order to keep the land they already own.
No, this is not in "society's best interest". This is in the capitalist's best interests. Those are very different.
Comments like these make me not want to live in this world anymore. I really hope I misunderstood the comment.
Edit: removed some unnecessary harsh words.
devil's advocate: No, not because of the rich but because of the poor. Buying a house decades ago was very possible on an average single person's salary. Nowadays, even upper income range couples have large troubles financing a house. So the situation is that you have lots of old people living in houses that they could never, ever afford at today's prices. The claim (no comment on whether it is correct or not) is that this causes massive distortion and that this proposal would fix it (doubt it, but that is the discussion).
> What the f*.
That is not helpful for a discussion. There is a problem stated and a (probably bad) proposal to address it. Instead of just saying "f*", address the problem and make a different proposal.
Fair enough. Edited that part off. I was simply extremely shocked at the implications, if I understood it correctly.
> So the situation is that you have lots of old people living in houses that they could never, ever afford at today's prices.
I don't think punishing people for what companies have done to inflate house prices is a good move though.
Screwing over people that bought houses that they live in instead of fixing the root causes for all these insane price hikes seems completely backwards to me.
Remember that companies or rich folks might have to pay some extra taxes but, in general, they can freaking afford it. Normal folks more often than not, can't.
The point of the proposal is that it is not an either or. In order to fix things you will have to also "screw over" people that have bought houses or people that currently can't buy houses. Long running problems are not quick and easy to fix and a fix will have collateral damage, not just "companies or rich folk".
Again: I am not taking a position on either side, but you are currently attacking a straw man.
The first is that if someone suddenly became wealthy because their house went up 3x in value and they want to continue living there then they can get a reverse mortgage. Assign that new found wealth in the equity to the bank in exchange for getting a monthly payment to pay the tax. If you're arguing they both should be able to stay, and keep the increase in equity that they contributed to them you're arguing housing should be a speculative investment (which leads to bad incentives).
> Screwing over people that bought houses that they live in instead of fixing the root causes for all these insane price hikes seems completely backwards to me.
The whole point is it's not. It's incentivising someone to move so they stop screwing over the 10-20 families they would like to buy a house but can't afford to because the supply is so low. By replacing the single story home with multi floor condos, more people can now afford homes in the area.
It is purely about how much land you sit on and where. That's it.
> Basically you're asking for normal people to work, get raises forever
Nope, it mostly incentivizes real estate hoarders to start making productive use of there land. It allows normal people to buy houses because this system inventivizes the increase of supply.
> land they already own because the rich need to get richer, you should sell?
If your lad value tax increases enough to be unpayable, then your house has likely appreciated 3x+. This makes you one of the rich.
There are no new houses in the neighborhood so the normal person can't afford a house. With land value tax, you can sell the land, make bank, and allow access to greater housing through upzoning. The normal person benefits greatly.
Either housing is an investment or an essential commodity. It can't be both.
So effectively normal people that don't own empty land will not pay this or pay an equivalent of the previous taxes?
> If your lad value tax increases enough to be unpayable, then your house has likely appreciated 3x+.
I guess you could try to argue that but I still feel like that's going to hurt folks. Imagine a scenario where I live somewhere for decades. Suddenly there's a new subway or some other factor that increases the value of the land enough that I can't pay for it.
Now I'm forced to leave this place when it finally becomes better to live in. In theory if I sold it, it would make me some money, but that's not the same as saying I'm a rich person now.
It's also not free in the sense that I still have to move somewhere else, which will probably be worse than the current place I live, since I will be required to buy a house with a lower tax (less valuable).
I can see the benefits if this was part of a bigger set of changes that would overall benefit everyone. But in isolation it seems like it will hurt normal folks and companies will just turn their empty plots into useless parking lots (or some other loophole they will find) to say it's "valuable".
I can imagine it.
That is exactly what happened to my neighborhood in India. Small residential condo community where Dad and I grew up. Everyone knows everyone sort of place. Our neighborhood suddenly turned into the hipster capital of India and began gentrifying and taxes started becoming unaffordable.
You know what people did ?
Took a deal to have their 5-storey condo redeveloped into a 30 storey one over 3 years. Everyone gets decent upfront cash, a huge rental allowance for the duration of the construction, 2x larger houses and more luxurious amenities.
Everyone is falling over themselves to have these deals signed. Yes, people waited till the last generation passed away, since they didn't want huge changes for those in their 80s. But, as those in their 50s-60s are heading into retirement, they are delighted to be able to retire wealthier, in a bigger house for 'free'.
The community has not been displaced, since everyone who lives here will still live here. Young families can buy apartments in one of the most accessible parts of town. Quality of life is better for everyone.
Who offers these deals? Is it the government or private corporations? I'm struggling to see how one profits from this (which is normally the only reason companies do anything) so I'm very curious.
This really does sound like a win/win situation if it's like you described it! Here I only hear/read stories about people losing their homes without any other option other than selling.
The 5 floor condo gets converted into a 30 floor tower. The residents gets 2x space and the first 10-ish floors. The rest goes to the private builder to sell to whoever they want as profits. It often involves demolition of 3-4 buildings into 1 large building. So a lot of wasted space also gets brought into building floorspace.
Skipping past your other points, I just wanted to reply to this sentence, since it seems to show a deep confusion/misunderstanding (perhaps on my behalf!).
- Land owners won't get to "say" how valuable their land is; that's determined by the market, assessors, etc.
- Given the chance, land owners would try to say their land's less valuable; since higher value means a higher tax bill.
- Land value tax is (as the name suggests) based on the value of the land; not what's on it. The tax for an empty lot is the same as a parking lot (or a skyscraper, for that matter).
- If anything, turning an empty lot into a car park may increase the company's tax bill. For example, if a lack of parking bottlenecked the area's economic growth, the new lot would allow more development nearby, increasing the area's land value, and hence increasing the company's tax bill.
- Turning an empty lot into a parking lot has construction costs (I'm assuming our company doesn't care about ongoing maintenance). Since the land value tax is unaffected (or even increased!), the only reason to construct a car park is when its predicted revenue is higher than its construction cost. The predicted revenue of a purposefully-useless parking lot is low, so there's no incentive to pay its construction cost: better to leave the plot empty!
- If the company can't use the land to bring in revenue that (a) pays off any initial capital/construction costs, and (b) exceeds the ongoing costs (including the constant land value tax!), then it should sell the land to avoid having to pay the tax.
- The only ones willing to buy the land off them (and hence take on its tax burden) are those who can make use of that land (either a company able to make a profit despite the tax liability; or people wanting to live there who are fine with paying the tax). In which case, the sale is incentivised and the land is put to better use.
PS: "From the outside" I'm sure there will be loopholes in theory, and in practice in Detroit. However, your example is pointing in the complete opposite direction of all the incentives, which looks "from the inside" like a lack of understanding.
They do need to make sure the tax is higher than the land value growth otherwise it wouldn't really work. Maybe it's not that hard, but with some of the price hikes I've seen, it could happen.
Honestly, I am very curious to see how this will pan out. Hopefully there isn't a giant loophole that will backfire as it happens with so many bills.
The more realistic picture is that grandma living alone in a rather large, old house, whose price, heating etc. went up quite drastically. That is already happening, in particular the heating part. Just have a look at Europe and the UK. The question then is, and I am not picking a side here, whether you spend public money so she can afford to stay in that large house or you make changes.
We had a law, that somehow got repelled by some lobbyist, where all the public money given to help was then taken out of inheritance (so the kids had to either pay it back, or property got sold at an auction, government took the money and the kids got the rest). This would solve the help-money issue.
In practice, that grandma is stuck in a city where her children and grandchildren can no longer afford to buy real estate in. Friends and neighbors who rent are priced out and have to move regardless. The local goods and services rise in price and taxes go up, all under the current system. Her support network and community evaporate and soon she finds nothing left but to sell to a corporation, who is the only entity left that can afford the prices her house demands.
The first order effect of a Land Value Tax is that it shifts who pays the biggest burden of taxes. Grandma A who owns a big house in the center of a vibrant city where lots of young families are looking for homes near their jobs might see an increase in her taxes, but the Grandma B who owns a Condo in a larger complex will likely see her taxes drop. Grandma C who lives in a nice well-maintained house way out in the burbs will likely see a drop as well, most of her value is in the nice home she has been tenderly caring for her whole life.
A second order effect of LVT is it creates a suppressive effect on real estate prices. When prices in an area are going up across the board, this is entirely in the value of the land, which means LVT taxes are going to rise correspondingly. This additional tax liability significantly helps counteract a speculative rise in prices, leading to a lower and more stable pricing, and pushing out those who are just looking to speculate on trends. The value that a government creates for its citizens is recaptured and able to be reinvested, instead of going directly in the pockets of land speculators.
The third order effect is that this shifts the incentives around value creation vs value capturing. Perhaps the house next door to Grandma's is currently owned by a deadbeat landlord, Pennybags, who lets the house fall into disrepair, hoping to turn around and sell it as the market rises. Now all of a sudden Pennybag's plan is quickly becoming a bad investment. With LVT his property value is more heavily correlated with the actual quality of the house and less with value of the land. He is finding that despite an increasing demand in the area, his property is actually dropping in price. Meanwhile good ole Grandma has been diligently been taking care of her home, and adding value and the price of her home has actually gone up faster than the rise in taxes. She's able to use to use the increase in value to take out a loan to build an accessory unit she uses to now help her cover her increased taxes, which further increases her property value. Despite all of that, her taxes have not gone up at all!
A LVT would just shift property tax burden more toward empty lots or less-developed parcels and away from more-developed parcels. It wouldn't result in killing little old ladies.
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.
Also, importantly, you can't "hide" land (from taxation) by moving it out of the country.
Historical Georgists were also called "single taxers" because of the idea to abolish all other taxes, but make up for this by a tax on land ownership that leaves the state with the same income stream as before. Apart from being (in their view) socially good, this would also have the advantage that landowners couldn't just move their land to the Cayman Islands to evade the tax.
I don't think modern Georgists are quite that single-minded, but I do get the argument that, for example, VAT is a tax on the poor in the sense that even people whose income is low enough that they're not paying income tax in the usual sense have to pay it every time they buy something (unless it's exempt), but taxing land would truly be a tax on the more affluent only, at least in a country where most poor people rent their accommodation.
And wardrobes, tables, books or computers (every year) but that's another story.
I suspect that in actual use it would end up having a small to no effect.
Similar arguments would go for rural municipalities that might want to encourage multi-generational agricultural living, for example, if that's what you're getting at.
Having un-utilized land in your family generation after generation codes as noble, but economically this is much worse than owning an AirBnb or a vacation home or being a Chinese investor who collects vacant luxury condos, or any of the other boogeymen of housing discourse. These people hold one unit off the market, and in the meantime they maintain it or finance its construction. The landowner builds and holds wealth for nothing but parasitism.
Being told you can't live in your house anymore because it is now zoned commercial gets people riled up, and being told the same because it's now too expensive does the same.
It's a hot-button issue but you can defuse it by putting safeguards in, though they're not always successful - see eminent domain scandals.
But this is more of a straw man than a real objection; as there are various and sundry ways to resolve this (for fixed income, you can have property tax deferral until sale-after-death, you can have homestead exemptions, etc etc).
I fail to see why that’s a problem. Those taxes go to fund local services (like schools, police, fire, etc.) whose costs likely scale when the local cost of living and land values scale. Buying land doesn’t mean you should get to lock in the price you pay for these services for perpetuity.
If anything a pure land value tax should be more predictable than a property tax, I got hit with a major property tax increase and looked into it, the town had calculated the new property tax based on an incorrect square footage and number of bedrooms for my house. After filing an appeal and going to court I got it fixed, but that was a more capricious process than if it was simply based on the value of the land under the house.
Then simply enact that, and the voters won't care because their taxes will stay the same (they probably will never actually decrease).
You won't get an absolutely black and white one sentence solution from it, but it is thought-provoking and contains some really useful ideas, IMO.
LVT would exclusively take from people and corporations who own land. This in turn will allow more people to own their home.
That sounds perverse in itself, especially since an economy needs diversity to function, and if everyone is incentivized to chase a single thing per region you end up with overproduction of that and underproduction of everything else.
I don't see why this would encourage economic homogenization.
Besides:
> Empty lots, parking lots, and other unimproved land would pay more tax.
Believe it or not, we need ranches and farms. Taxing them out of existence would be bad.
Maximum value, not maximum density.
They may tend to be the same thing, but that's not necessarily the case.
Thank God we are far from reaching that point.
If land is in a city, that gives it a high value and revenue earning potential due to no work or expenditure from the land owner, but ongoing costs to the taxpayer to provide the infrastructure and services that give it this value and potential. Roads, schools, hospitals, etc. these are very costly to the public but increase the value of nearby land.
The land value tax gives the owner an incentive to invest in improvements and get the maximum economic return on the land, and dissincentivising sitting on land in order to benefit 'for free' from it's improving value. So it's about making sure the public gets the maximum benefit from it's investments that improve the value of the land. Taxing improvements directly would have the opposite effect.
Let's say because of rising taxes, a bakery or a shop has closed and a lawyers office has opened in that spot. Who exactly us "the public" in this case and what are the "maximum benefits" that they are getting from that change? Because if I actually lived nearby, I sure wouldn't be happy about my favorite vakery/shop being closed.
And don't say "increased tax base" - for that, you can tweak existing system and increase income taxes so you collect more from the lawyers while still keeping bakeries alive.
The current property tax system makes it more likely that (in your example) the law firm will push out the bakery. Because improvements are taxed adding more commercial space means paying more taxes, which makes it less likely to happen.
With an LVT, expanding the building (up or out) to add a second store/office is cheaper so you’re more incentivized to provide space for both
The important thing isn't that the lawyer's office makes more money. That's just correlated with the important thing, which is that the lawyer's office is willing to pay more rent. Note the lawyer isn't operating a charity for property owners here; they're only going to pay as much for rent as required for the market.
If prevailing rent is high enough such that only lawyers get retail square footage, then clearly property should be taxed as such. That's the value of the land. But then more development will happen, eventually reaching an equilibrium.
Taxes will rise in neighborhoods where improvements have happened. To determine the neighborhood is improving, we need a metric, for instance traffic. We expect the donut shop in an improved neighborhood to see increased traffic and more sales. If traffic doesn't increase then land value hasn't actually increased and the taxes have been applied inappropriately. Maybe we can come up with a better indicating mechanism for land value, I admit I have not read Henry George's work.
Empty land isn't using any of those things. Any future improvement would use those things and be taxed accordingly. If you're concerned about infrastructure costs, the. You want to use a per capita tax or the current property tax that taxes the improvements (where people work or live) since they are using the infrastructure.
But even if you’re not using them, the utility services (water, power, sewer) still have to pass by the property. Power lines and poles are there, they have to be maintained, your water main can’t be leaking, etc. There are real costs to do all that.
It doesn't have to use them to benefit from their proximity. Land in the middle of a barren desert is usually worth far less than a similar piece of land near a populous city.
Yeah, but we are seeing that many cities are not prosperous and are seeing population reductions. You can't will the creation of value. Just because it gets taxed like the land will create value doesn't mean it actually will.
"in a way that benefits the community."
These taxes don't guarantee this at all. There could be any number of uses, many of which could be detrimental or wasteful (and this will vary based on perspective as not everyone wants the same thing).
Sure, but the real question is what does one consider productive enough? Should we tax a single family home at the rate of an apartment building just because the zoning changed? My opinion is that this type of scheme will be abused to force some people out of their homes in the name of benefiting society. My guess is developers and apartment companies can "persuade" politicians in many areas to change zoning to force people out, possibly the "wrong" kinds of people.
If you want productive uses, then you'd be better off charging a vacancy tax to already developed property. You wouldn't be able to fill all those spaces because the physical economy has shrunk, or people don't want to live/work in a rundown area, etc. There's plenty of open commercial real estate around me. The problem is you don't have customers to support the businesses that already exist.
A tax purely on the land has the same justification as a windfall tax. The value goes up or down independently of any action of the owner. i.e. They didn't do anything to deserve the increase in their wealth. The value comes from what the land is surrounded by.
It could instead leave you on the hook for increases in the desirability of the neighborhood which you have no say in. So it would mean that homeowners get screwed even harder if their neighborhood gets gentrified.
The steelman for it is that society should incentivize denser development of more desirable land, by disincentivizing maintaining sparse development of it.
Meaning, their land value and therefore wealth has gone up. Many people would love to be "screwed" like this, and in fact very hard at getting into the position amenable to "screwing."
As a class, real property owners are wealthier and have means relative to people who don't own real property. The idea that they're some oppressed underclass is ridiculous.
That is exactly what a land value tax does, in a negative way. It disincentivizes buying land in a desirable neighborhood and then doing nothing with it, waiting for prices to rise.
With capital value taxation (the other alternative), a person doing that pays less tax than someone providing buildings for people to live in or businesses to operate in. So they can do it for longer.
Because any buildings on the land are not taxed, construction is not disincentivized. Well, it wouldn't be, if permitting were not insane...
Cheekiness aside, you'll find the overlap of people who support both a land value tax and a wealth tax to almost be a circle.
Though popularised by George it was first rigourously analysed by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations.
We are, ultimately, all tenants of our sovereign. Our sovereign protects us from enemies both foreign and domestic. They do not protect our incomes, or our assets but by and large most societies do agree that it is a matter of fact that can be arbitrated in a dispute as to who owns which piece of land.
The arguments for an LVT fall into both economic & moral categories. The economic argument is that the elasticity for land is zero. It's always there, always will be there, and no human action is going to change that (barring things like landfill, which are a literal edge case that doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of land area). The only economic questions are "Who owns the land?", "What kind of returns can be generated from it?" and "How is it distributed?" As a result, a tax on land has zero deadweight loss. Most taxes reduce economic activity by disincentivizing the transaction they're taxing; as a result, productive activity that would've occurred without the tax never occurs. Land is different. The land will still be owned, just by different people, regardless of how high it is taxed. That means that the government can raise revenue without curtailing economic activity.
The moral argument is that nobody built the land out of their own labor, they only conquered it. And so what right do they have to monopoly returns from its ownership? Land was commons that existed before humanity, and so returns from ownership of it should go back to the commons, in the form of funding (presumably democratically elected) government and public-sector improvements that raise the value of the land for all.
Property on the land is different, in that it is built through human labor & ingenuity, and the returns to doing that should accrue to the people who actually do it (or compensate them for creating the built infrastructure).
And this is a fantasy. Some land is marginal: Taxing it more would reduce the profit anyone could make from it to nothing, leading to empty lots that aren't owned by anyone because the last owners were delinquent on taxes to the point the local government took the land from them and is now trying to auction it off. Look at houses in Detroit being sold for a dollar for an example of this. The city makes no money from those.
https://99wfmk.com/detroits-one-dollar-houses/
> It sounds like a good deal...a dollar for an old decrepit house – but then what? Then you have to pay for all the repairs, renovations, excavation (if needed), property taxes, lawn work.....so you fork out just one whole dollar but you wind up spending no less than six figures getting it in shape. Whether you plan to keep it or sell it is a moot point. You're still out that money.
Plus:
> The moral argument is that nobody built the land out of their own labor, they only conquered it.
Turn a piece of land into a farm and say that.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37913341
> 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.
So by definition, the "best use" isn't very valuable. I suppose the definition doesn't strictly include residential usage, but it's not hard to see that some land is inherently less valuable for residential as well, because location matters.
"Tax the land as if was being used for best use" is an oversimplification. The government can't realistically know what the best use of land is, or what value that would command. That's for the market to decide. But the point of an LVT is that you're taxed on the base value of the land (as measured by how much profit your neighbors are making off it), and so only usages of the land that are better than average remain profitable. If none of your neighbors can turn a profit on it either, tax will be negligible.
That's Detroit's plan.
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, stained glass window or chandelier. Tax a house on a foundation; no tax for a house on wheels? This "LVT" scheme does away with those issues so folks can fix whatever they want to the location, so it makes more sense logically even if the connection to Detroit's problems is very unclear.
In practice, real estate is the 20x more valuable than any other personal property, so it doesn't make sense to tax anything else. Cars are subject to a registration fee.
If you own expensive business machinery, that may be subject to tax in some states. My county also taxes boats and airplanes.
In many places a large part of what property tax is for is things like roads, water, sewer, police, fire, and schools.
For most of those how much money is needed for them depends a lot more on what is on the land than on the land itself. E.g., the amount of sewer capacity needed for a lot is proportional to the number of people who live on the lot. It thus seems sensible to have a tax that includes as a factor what is built on the lot.
I would go further and actually argue that you need more road and sewer capacity because someone inserted a blank patch of land between dense areas.
The tax is an incentive to develop when the land's value is high. The city is basically saying that you have an obligation to build something useful or sell the land to someone who will.
I'm interested to see what happens. I'm hopeful that it will be good for urbanization.
Surrounding towns will probably not do LVT, which will also be interesting.
Surface streets are obviously proportional to land area. So are water and sewage infrastructure, and they're massively more expensive than streets. As others have pointed out, water treatment and supply are handled by usage charges.
The 'goofiness' is on purpose: you tend to get less of what you tax. Most taxes are taxes on some kind of economic activity.
The supply of land is fixed, so you can tax it all you want without impacting economic activity, like working a job or investing capital or even just shopping.
> [...] even if the connection to Detroit's problems is very unclear.
Detroit suffers from a lack of economic activity.
Not quite.
They have to pay up while they own the land.
They can develop it in ways that may generate revenue sufficient to cover the tax (e.g. a landlord-developer)
They can develop it in ways that won't generate revenue, but that satisfies their own goals, and pay the tax from some other source (e.g. a homeowner)
They can sell it to drop the tax liability.
The carry cost has gone up, forcing action!
The thing missing from the above scenarios is:
Owner can't afford the tax, can't find renters, can't find a buyer, so just walks away. This is why so many properties are vacant now. The owners just walked away.
> This is why so many properties are vacant now.
In Detroit...?
People don't walk away because they can't afford taxes. It's because any dollar spent is negative NPV!
It means that you only pay for the structures, or the cost to remove a blighted structure, etc. It makes real estate more liquid, and allows more people to try their hand at development without having a massive land bank worth millions of dollars.
It decentralizes these decisions and lets more local players get involved. It rewards those who are productive, and encourages those who are squatting on resources to let somebody else give it a shot.
You're missing THE point.
Your comment is too general.
1. You'll only pay higher taxes if your ratio of land/improvements is above a threshold (TBD).
2. The article says that the proposed change would lower taxes for 95+% of the population.
I don't see how this helps Detroit's problems - unless they arbitrarily set high values on land where land is possibly already worthless. The areas with the most blight have the lowest land values already.
The city already owns 75k out of 380k lots (~20% of the city - most of it vacant) - and instead of trying to sell the lots - the Detroit Land Bank holds onto them to arbitrarily inflate land values.
This seems like another recipe for a negative feedback loop that makes bad areas even worse.
Just tax blight outright.
Give away the damn land to anyone that will build something on it and live there - or get someone else to live there, pay taxes, and be a valuable part of the community - rather than a vacant lot that's a breeding ground for crime.
A land value tax is a much more elegant solution. For one, it doesn't introduce the problem of needing to define 'vacant land'. Is a parking lot vacant land? etc
Of course it does. Complexity in the tax law is regressive. It lets wealthier people and businesses take advantage of more deductions and writeoffs to lower their tax burden, due to the ability to hire accountants full time to work on it. Simple taxes that are difficult to avoid (such as LVT) are best if you want a progressive tax regime.
One of the best features of LVT is that it taxes unearned increases in the value of land. While you can do any improvements you want to the property without increasing the LVT, improvements made by the city or other private interests to the area around your land absolutely will increase its value, thus increasing your tax burden.
Can you explain how is it simple? Who gets to set the theoretical value of a plot of land, disconnected from all current uses? Since it's theoretical, it's very subjective. Who do we give this power to make or destroy the owners based on purely subjective speculation on what it might be worth? How do we guarantee that this entity won't abuse the power to set arbitrary tax valuations?
We don't. They already do that with "normal" property taxes. This wouldn't change that.
Soon-to-be gentrified neighborhoods are often ignored by property tax assessors and code enforcement for many years, then one day a developer reaches out to the tax assessors and says "hey the taxable assessment values in this neighborhood should really be higher". Then the people living there have taxes raised 10-20% every year until they are forced to sell for low prices because they can't afford to hold onto their property until the gentrification is actually well underway when they'd finally see their property value actually go up.
At least, that's how it goes in Texas.
I don't think this system would be worse in that sense, probably roughly equivalent. But it makes sense to at least attempt to tax undeveloped and under-developed land at high enough rates to encourage at least some healthy amount of development. It won't be perfect, but it shouldn't be worse either.
I don't see how it can't not be much worse.
If the tax is based on the actual value of the property, there are two important factors:
1- You can easily prove or disprove whether the valuation makes sense. Just look at comparable sales nearby. If in a neighborhood of similar houses, ten have been sold in the past year for 200K and your very similar house receives a tax bill saying it's worth 2M, you can easily protest and win since the sales records show it's only worth +/- 200K.
2- If it really is worth 2M based on comparable sales, in worst case you can then sell it for 2M. While it's terrible to kick people out of their homes via property taxes, at least the consolation is that it's actually worth that. So you don't go bankrupt, you can sell it for that price.
With LVT the tax is supposed to be based on some theoretical projection of what it might be worth if a non-existing structure were to be there. What prevents the county from telling you that if only you built a ten story highrise there, it would be worth 10M? So now you have to pay tax on 10M.
You can't easily disprove it because, well perhaps maybe it's true that if the highrise was there it might be worth 10M. But of course the building doesn't exist so it's all speculation. Also, since the building doesn't actually exist, you can't sell the property for 10M to pay the tax bill.
In the Houston area the appraisal board just doesn’t care. They raise taxes across the board for the whole neighborhood by the same amount every year and appealing has limited effect. You cant really argue comparables because the whole neighborhood raises in lockstep by a shocking amount every year (since well before the big housing bubble)
Comparables refers to actual sales of similar homes nearby. If all sales in the neighborhood have been +/- $200K over the last year, they should not be able to claim the property is worth 500K. Or they could, but should be easy to disprove.
When you get a mortgage, it's based on a theoretical value of the property as determined by an assessment.
The bank will lend you up to, for example, 90% of the assessed value. Thats how you get a morthgage on a property that maybe you already own for 20 years.
This looks more like a way to destroy society than prudent tax policy.
It would raise the value of your land.
Perhaps that's the point - in order for cities to stay dynamic and fair, we need to make everyone pay something close to market value for their land - even those who bought it a long time ago. But doing so is unlikely to make those people very happy.
If LVT helps to loosen up some undeveloped/underdeveloped land and get it into the hands of a willing developer then that is a big win for the fight against the housing crisis.
It's also a false dichotomy. We don't need LVT to solve housing. We don't even know if LVT would solve housing. On the other hand, we know exactly how to solve housing. People just don't want to.
We'll just have to wait and see then. Detroit is going to try it out and we'll see how it works for them.
we know exactly how to solve housing. People just don't want to.
It's a collective action problem. One of the ways we usually solve those is through government action. LVT is a candidate for exactly that!
Well that's a problem with those people if they think their most valuable capital asset is irrelevant.
It is relevant, because without LVT, the tax code is literally encouraging inefficient use of land. Housing prices consistently rising five times faster than salaries is a huge problem, and it is caused by inefficient land use.
If only that were so! Then the American real estate market wouldn't have been artificially stacked in favor of homeowners for the last eighty years.
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 well with housing.
Meanwhile the people who just want to raise a family in peace and stability can now be priced out of their homes because their neighborhood got too "good". And that's just the goldilocks analysis.
In grim reality, city councils can use this to soft-evict anyone, anywhere without giving a reason by simply raising the estimated land value. The corruption is going to be off the charts.
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
This already happens just with more economic inefficiency under a property-tax regime. People already vote against improvements that would cause their taxes to go up.
But it introduces, unless I'm completely misunderstanding, the need to establish a theoretical value for a plot of land that's unrelated to any sale or use value we can objectively measure today.
At best, it seems the assesment will be very wrong often. At worst, it'll be a political tool for local government to drive out whoever they want by overvaluing plots on purpose.
A lot of the land around Detroit is nearly worthless given the blight. Will it be taxed at $0 or will they say that in an alternate universe someone could build a skyscraper there so it's worth millions? Even though nobody would actually fund that work.
Taxing based on sale price isn't perfect, but at least it is much harder to game since it's based on a concrete market-clearing price that isn't up for debate.
Distinguishing between lot value and property value is already a very common exercise in the real estate business.
Basically all of your data points are the built-up prices. So it is going to be easier to estimate the built-up value than the raw property value. Maybe not much easier, but definitely not harder.
Or maybe a tax based on more things has nothing to do with complexity. The largest market is for land and structures. That makes it the simplest to value.
This is a nightmare. Can you elaborate?
A good starting point can be the relevant part of the Georgist primer published on ACX:
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/does-georgism-work-part-3-c...
Now how do we determine that x%? That's a good question. I think there's no way out of some empiricism even if someone did try this approach. But you can always start it low and raise it incrementally to see how it affects the land economy of an area.
Why? This just seems to create yet another perverse incentive structure that people have to invest time into understanding (and some into exploiting), rather than adding any actual value. Taxes mean nothing if everyone is too busy figuring out this sort of scheme to do anything valuable.
> To put this problem starkly: allocative efficiency and thus an efficient market economy is impossible in the presence of private ownership.
What the paper's early pages are saying is that study A found that things could be allocated more efficiently, and study B found that sometimes people hold out from selling things now to gain more later, therefore to increase the efficiency of global (literally) allocation of resources, people should be forced to sell things or pay more taxes to keep them.
This seems to have several problems on its face, that might be dealt with later, but still:
- This is all theory. There is no global optimum to observe, no matter how many papers might be written. Only to theorise about.
- This is relative, and time-sensitive. I might value a property at X because at that moment it's worth that much to me. It might change in the future, or depend on how markets are doing. Should I instantly sell because I have an ice cream shop and people are all eating gelato, and I can't afford the tax so I reduce the valuation to a point where some shark can grab the building?
- Perfect is the enemy of good, particularly when perfect is so poorly defined. This can get a lot worse much more easily than it can get a bit better.
Think at the margin here. You're not saying you should instantly sell because the gelato/ice cream enthusiast ratio has increased slightly. You're saying everyone all at once decided en masse to start eating gelato instead of ice cream. Yes, as an entrepreneur you need to respond to that. That's an enormous and sudden change in not just the long- but even the short-term viability of your endeavor.
Indeed the forced price mechanic improves the short term responsivity of the local economy to such a change, because your scenario suggests a recent total upset in the established order of things. I would rather see you walk away today, from a venture that you realized yesterday was doomed to fail, with an extra $X in your pocket from the shark who bought you out than to see you driven to bankruptcy because you were the last ice cream boy in this mad, gelato crazed new world. Who knows -- maybe you'll start an ice cream stand in a cheaper, more sane part of the world with it.
But I'm having trouble as a result of the choice of icecream/gelato words.
I interpreted @robertlagrant to be in the "gelato is icecream" camp (which seems reasonable to me in a "baguettes are bread" sense).
But @hiAndrewQuinn, you seem to be in the "gelato is not icecream" camp. I would call this is an arguably correct position similar to "chicken tikka masala is not Indian food," but I doubt most people holding either of these positions would consider these kinds of small differences likely to be the trigger for a business becoming unviable. So perhaps you didn't know what gelato was?
In either case, I think you two need to be using the same definitions for your illustrations to make sense. And I really want them to make sense because I want to understand :)
That doesn't make any sense in the context of a land value tax.
The whole point of a land value tax is that a parcel of city center land is taxed at the same rate whether it's got a parking lot on it or an apartment block.
But the owner of an apartment block would self-assess their land as much more valuable than a parking lot, not wanting to be forced to sell their apartment block for the price of a parking lot. So you'd be back to having a property tax, not a land value tax.
But they may later find out that the parking lot isn't really worth $5 million, because it's harder to make the money to justify the x% of $5 million tax you're paying on it with a parking lot than with an apartment complex. They may then drop their valuation to $3 million, or $2 million, to reduce the total amount they pay in tax each year. But then of course they may run a greater risk of being forced to sell themselves -- perhaps even back to the original apartment runner they paid $5 million to before.
Depreciation reflects that the asset's value is used up over time by allowing the owner to deduct part of its value each period to reflect the reduction in asset value in their financial statements.
Depreciation definitely needs to be fixed. You shouldn't be able to claim 3% of a structures value as business loss every year, without some sort of evidence that you will actually tear down the structure in 33 years. And perhaps after it has been counted as depreciated once, future owners shouldn't be allowed to deduct the depreciation either.
Let alone things just getting dated.
If you look at typical house most of the labor and expense for materials is in the finishing not the rough structure like the framing. Look at the price of 8 ft 1x4 trim piece compared to just 8' 2x4 despite the 2x4 having twice the amount of wood. Then look at what generally needs to be replaced its not the framing unless the building was neglected or poorly built.
It might appear they are, but if you properly account for everything it’s not tremendously advantageous.
And it reduces your cost basis also, which means you pay more tax when selling unless you have other ways of avoiding that.
Eventually the land ends up in the hands of the few willing and able to abuse the land to that level, prioritizing profit above all else.
Assuming that higher density is always better ignores the externalities required to maintain such a system. Higher density cities require more outside inputs brought in from outside the city. Those inputs strip resources from other lands, require input to process the raw materials, and require fuel and vehicles to transport the goods into the city frequently. The city's waste must be transported and processed somewhere, again adding impacts to the environment even if those impacts aren't directly felt within city limits.
If the goal is to minimize impact, cities would only be as large and as dense as they can reasonably be self sufficient. That doesn't preclude trade between cities, states, and countries, but it does mean the city isn't entirely dependent on a constant churn of bringing in resources from elsewhere and shipping out waste.
Surely, it can't possibly be that simple. Sometimes that's true, sometimes it is not. If I want fiber to my house in the country I might be paying $30k to get that line all the way to my one house whether I want 100MB/sec or 10GB/sec. In the city it might be shared with hundreds and only need to run a few yards. Same for sewage. Same for police and fire.
Your examples only really touch on one relevant example though, sewage. Sewage isn't really an issue in rural areas, off grid seltic systems process waste on site and more compelling systems can even compost human waste with very little effort. Modern central sewage system only exist because of dense cities, they weren't needed before that.
High speed internet is purely a convenience and really shouldn't be a concern if there's any meaningful environmental impact from it. Police and fire similarly are conveniences that may turn into necessities in highs density areas. I live in a rural area where police may show up tomorrow if I call them now and our fire is mostly volunteer.
I've never heard of anyone having real issues from either. Volunteer fire still respond quickly enough and it's amazing how much less import policing is when people are more spread out and the expectation of turning to police for every problem isn't the norm.
However if all you ever do is drive to the big city I can see how that would take more time and distance.
Now for the first paragraph: This is kind of the point because maximizing use generally means more density, which means more opportunity to minimize use elsewhere. I did outline one situation that I thought was unfair and should be addressed, which is the situation where you buy land zoned one way with a much lower value only to have it zoned another way on you that makes it a lot more valuable. Other than that specific situation, I don't agree with you that your first paragraph is a problem, it's a positive feature.
As far as shipping goes, it can definitely be comparably affordable to ship in products. Though you still have to factor in costs of everything from making and maintaining those vehicles, the oil and gas that moves them, and the costs on the area that actually produced the products.
My point isn't that everything should be magically fixed with more rural living or a perfect balance of density in cities. I'm simply trying to raise the other side to point out that things aren't simple or clean enough to actually run the math on whether dense cities are better or worse at reducing impact on the environment. There are simply too many factors and hidden costs along the way to calculate accurately.
These resources can be transported to high density living, or spread out across 100x - 1000x area. Which do you think is more efficient?
Building roads, water, electricity costs millions/mile. All this must be built before you even think about shipping resources to support. Then services (schools, hospitals, dentist) -- all of these and services only make sense at scale.
https://umdearborn.edu/news/mapping-detroit-new-tool-aims-id...
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?
Costs can be externalized, but at the environment level they still exist even if outside the city of consumers. It's also often the case that externalizing those costs adds even more impact as the product has to be shipped in and the waste shipped back out.
I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that people that don't live in cities don't consume, or consume less of, food, water, electricity, furniture and clothing?
> It's also often the case that externalizing those costs adds even more impact as the product has to be shipped in and the waste shipped back out.
They have to be shipped to fewer places and thus save resources. The only way what you are saying makes any sense is either if shipping things to more places somehow save resources or if people that don't live in cities don't need anything shipped.
It may be true from a theoretical viewpoint, but in general cities are richer and consume more.
Optimizing for profit in urban land use excludes the production of raw materials almost entirely. Meaning that raw materials have to be grown or raised elsewhere, transported into the city, and the waste has to be removed afterward.
Wouldn't it be more beneficial purely from an environmental angle to produce more food and resources in the urban areas to minimize external costs? And if so, wouldn't the current system disincentivize this in favor of higher profit per square foot businesses, regardless of the environmental impact?
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.
Single family homes are often easier to power off-grid with solar if that's on the table, though again with regards to externalities the solar power equipment likely sends those costs to multiple countries on the other side of the planet.
If you replaced property taxes with land value taxes and held revenue equal:
For rural areas, not much would change. Land is cheap and taxes would remain low.
For suburban areas, there would be a moderate shift in tax burden. People with homes on large plots of land would pay more; people with homes on smaller plots of land would pay less.
For urban areas, the changes would be drastic. Because land is limited in urban cores and appreciates in value every year, there's an absurd amount of speculation. An LVT would discourage this by making it costly to hold onto undeveloped or underdeveloped land just for future price gains. As a result, we could expect a surge in the development of vacant or underutilized plots, leading to a potential increase in housing availability and a decrease in rental prices. This would both alleviate housing shortages and reduce the speculative bubbles that can distort urban real estate markets.
The wealth transfer is a feature rather than a bug, in this case. Speculators sitting on unimproved or underutilised land are seen as literal rent-seekers, and taxing them is seen as reclaiming a natural monopoly at the same time as removing the leeches who're sucking up big chunks of a city's growth.
Because otherwise newcomers are stuck paying high rents to people who got there first, causing misery and impoverishing young people to the benefit of the old. And when young people lack opportunity, violence happens.
> why not incentive the opposite and incentive leaving the land natural?
We do. All over the place. But for the cost of a square mile of Central London being natural, we could have a dozen square miles of natural land just 50 miles away. Because way more people want to live in Central London than a commuter town.
Didn’t Detroit raze the lots in the first place, since they considered an empty lot to be better than one with a decaying house? I really doubt many of these lots will ever actually be developed to any reasonable extent, since they aren’t exactly in nice areas. And likewise I bet there won’t be many people dying to buy these lots either. My guess is the city will be taking ownership of a decent amount of land in the not-so-distant future.
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.
And so the value of the land is less and the LVT drops along with it.
Of course for someone planning on putting another service station there maybe not...
But that would make the land valuable again …
It’s quite possible to have a plot of land (especially in more rural areas) that is “worth” $10k but has state mandated cleanup required that costs $60k.
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.
Most states do tax mobile homes, they just classify them as vehicles. Whether that actually makes a difference in the tax rate depends on the state.
The goal of an LVT is to insulate a landowner's tax bill from being affected by their own improvements. Its anti-goal is to insulate a landowner from changes in land use around them.
Shifting the tax burden from homeowners and productive businesses onto idle land holders means that those that drive the community will penalize investment less and use limited resources in more effective ways.
Efficiency helps the wealthy, but it can help those with less even more, as it matters more.
Take a look for yourself[0]. This is just outside of the downtown area. Loads of vacant lots. This is theoretically prime real estate, and would be ripe for development. The problem is, it's the fucking hood and no one wants to live there. Detroit emptied out over the decades and those empty lots _used_ to be decaying crack houses. So several years ago Detroit had them leveled to reduce blight. Now they're whining that people are just "speculating" by sitting on the empty land. If there was even the slightest hint that developing this land made sense economically, someone would have done it by now. It's just too convenient to the downtown area. And yet, no one has. Perhaps there's more at play than just people trying to sit on empty land.
0: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Detroit,+MI/@42.3370378,-8...
Build a 200 unit apartment complex in an area with a housing problem and jobs currently unfilled ... yep.
Build a gigantic house to be occupied by a single very wealthy family .. not so much.
But how to measure the difference? The simple market value of the improvements is not going to be accurate.
> In FY 2023, the Department of Education (ED) had $271.01 Billion distributed among its 10 sub-components.
Maybe they just burn that quarter trillion, but I suspect it ends up in the districts eventually.
https://peecs.net/2021/03/10/how-are-california-school-budge...
So federal is...7%?
Of course it's all academic in a way, because money is fungible.
I think a local income tax is the correct way to handle it theoretically but I don’t know any specific examples.
It seems easier to just have a land value tax, so you don’t specifically disincentivize development. Then, you can spend that tax money to provide services that promote the other stuff: beautify downtown and add public transit, that sort of thing.
But what has the investor taken from the public when they build? The best possible answer, in my opinion, is the value of the land they occupy. This exclusive use of a portion of land deprived all others from using it. That is the value of the land, and there are roughly two sources of that value: proximity to all the other things that others have built, or access to natural resources. And importantly, the investor is not the source of that land value, that comes from society as a whole or from nature.
So that's why the land value is an appropriate object of taxation: it's a payment to us all for what we have been deprived of. A person who builds a massive structure of great value on a piece of land has built that structure, but they didn't build the land or the bounty that the land provides.
The provision of good emergency services and hospitals and libraries and other amenities raises the land values within their service areas. (They don't raise the value of the buildings.)
If if someone in your neighborhood repaints their house, your land becomes more desirable. This is true for you and others!
The problem is determining what the land is worth. If you use a periodic market-based auction system (the only known way that could possibly yield accurate prices), then you give the government and the wealthy extraordinary power to kick people out of their residences, even ones in which the tenants built the house. Good for the collective perhaps, but terrible for individual autonomy. This could be mitigated by auctioning off longer length (~say 30 year) leases, but you can end up with huge value mismatches after 30 years of change, just like today, and I suspect there would be other unintended consequences. For example, things wouldn't be built to last, they'd be built to generate as much value as possible before the lease is auctioned off again.
And even then, you haven't really determined what the land is worth, since any rational auction participant is considering how much money can be made with the existing improvements on the property.
That being said, I hope they do try it in Detroit, since I have no stake in the city and it seems like it has more to gain than to lose from such an experiment.
Wrt "even ones in which the tenants built the house": For me the baseline of implementing LVT is that ppl don't have to pay it for their primary housing (or a much lowered version of it). Is that controversial?
Of course, remember that apartment buildings are commercial businesses…
Also excluding homesteads destroys the public schools, because they’re often in areas that really only have houses and a Walmart or two, and if the entire property tax burden is transferred to the Walmart it’ll just close.
Overall, I think there are so many impracticalities and second-order problems with implementing LVT that it seems like nothing more than a fantasy mental exercise.
Usually that is solved by various measure to slow down the tax increases for existing homeowners - which can be good or bad, depending on whether you're a homeowner or somebody looking for a home.
Whereas in an LVT system, a person just gets priced out as the neighborhood increases in value with nothing to show for it, even if they spent money to build or improve the house.
I don't see how having regular auctions to determine what the land is actually worth is compatible with true land ownership. You auction the land to determine the tax, someone pays more than the current lessor, then that highest bidder gets to lease the land from the government and kick out the old lessor. Where does ownership of land and ability to sell it and profit from improvements come into play?
Unless you are in the Georgism-lite camp that says no auctions, just let government appraisers put value on the land as they do today and base the property tax on that exclusively instead of the current combined property tax. In this case you still have property ownership/buying/selling, which is far superior. I think the pros could outweigh the cons in limited situations, specifically downtown metro areas. But you have to accept a lot of bad pricing in this scenario, because these are the same assessors who allow all of those single story parking lots to profitably exist in downtown metros throughout the country.
These appraisers would all of a sudden wield huge influence, and one appraiser's opinion of the value of being near trendy shops or a park or a waterfront could vary significantly from another's. At least now they can use market data from similar properties to come to a tax assessment, since the tax is being assessed on the full value of the property.
Nobody's actually suggesting randomly auctioning off people's land at periodic time intervals.
You're arguing with ghosts.
You might be surprised if you visit r/georgism.
But the point is that if you don't do auctions, you don't know how to price the LVT, and you don't actually know if the resulting inefficiencies are more significant than the core problem with taxing productive land use that Georgism tries to address.
> You're arguing with ghosts.
You're selectively arguing with a fraction of a comment.
This system wouldn't work, because you would be measuring the property value not land value
Land value tax: Your tax is unchanged on how much you invest in your properties. A rundown parking lot pays the same amount of tax as the next door skyscraper (encouraging development of limited, high value land, and punishing lazy speculation).
Land value tax is a simple, elegant way to incentivize more (and more efficient) economic development.
> Land value tax: Your tax is unchanged on how much you invest in your properties. A rundown parking lot pays the same amount of tax as the next door skyscraper (encouraging development of limited, high value land, and punishing lazy speculation).
The problem with this analysis of a land value tax is that the value of the lot next to the skyscraper depends on the improvements of the skyscraper lot. This is in addition to the 'inherent' value of being downtown.
If we assume the skyscraper is the highest and best use of the land, it would then appear that both the skyscraper land owner and the parking lot land owner are being charged based on the investments made on the skyscraper lot.
Now, how are market prices determined? Overall, investors and lenders wish to maximize a return on investment. Indeed, property appraisals explicitly consider the highest and best use of a property in determining its market value.
So I am unclear how the explicit taxation of land value and improvement value that exists currently causes differences in behavior from the land value tax system you outlined.
Land with a skyscraper already on it and land next to a skyscraper have related but not equal market values. Switching from a tax on market value to a tax on land value rewards the the owner who developed their land and punishes the owner who didn't.
I agree! But in appraisals that I have seen, there is an effort to assess the highest and best use of a parcel as well as a break-out of the value of the land associated with a parcel.
If the highest and best use of a parcel is a skyscraper, a sale of the parcel should occur near the valuation of skyscrapers in that area. If there is no skyscraper on the parcel, the sale should occur near the valuation of land that has the possibility to be turned into a skyscraper.
> Switching from a tax on market value to a tax on land value rewards the the owner who developed their land and punishes the owner who didn't.
I agree that the owner who built the skyscraper is being penalized (but also, the owner would not have created a sksyscraper if the underwriting did not show the endeavor would be profitable).
However, both land owners are being taxed on land value; one is also being taxed on the improvements on the land. It would seem that the land value of both parcels should be the same.
Yes, the land value is the same. lets say the Land value is $1 million each and the skyscraper is worth $1 million. Lets say property taxes are 1% under the current system:
0.01 * 2,000,000 = $20,000/year for skyscraper plot
0.01 * 1,000,000 = $10,000/year for vacant plot
There's a total of $30,000 per year in income so we have to equalize our LVT to match. a 1.5% LVT gives us:
0.015 * 1,000,000 = $15,000/year for skyscraper plot
0.015 * 1,000,000 = $15,000/year for vacant plot
The owner will evaluate building a skyscraper against investing in some other venture unrelated to the land. Under Property Tax, investing that $1 million into his property adds a -1% to his projected yearly returns that isn't present for other investments that $1 million is competing for. That discourages development even if the skyscraper would have been profitable.
My question is why we need to reframe our extant system as a 'land value tax.' This proposition suggests that we should give concessions to developers in areas where there is a need for more development. But this already happens!
I guess I don't know why we should avoid taxing the value of revenue-generating assets if they are fixed. Buying a truck for a landscaping business is an taxable purchase. Why should this be different when the asset is fixed?
For "This proposition suggests that we should give concessions to developers in areas where there is a need for more development."
Development is a good thing. Maintaining your house or property, improving it, developing businesses are all good things. I'm not sure we should restrict these things to "areas where there is a need for more development". I don't want to live next to someone who has a rotting ruin of a house, who didn't maintain their place in order to pay less in taxes.
Someone maintaining their roof isn't a developer, and isn't going to be making money from their investment but they still pay more in taxes because they do it. They always won't get any government concessions or subsidies to do it (in general).
Similarly, a small business owner usually does not get concessions for starting their business. Usually they instead have to pay extra for permitting and such.
The parking lot owner next the skyscraper, however, gets FREE value from the skyscraper construction - essentially leaching off of another's productivity.
As for the argument how we SHOULD be taxing assets ... every tax takes money from the economy, and some ways of doing that are "better" than others, in that they result in more desired outcomes. LVT seems to provide better outcomes than other ways of taxation.
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.
You say they shouldn’t be able to charge for it, but instead of disallowing it you just change the beneficiary?
The game Monopoly was originally called The Landlord's Game and meant to demonstrated the issues of land monopolism.
It was created by Lizzie Magie, a designer and political activist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizzie_Magie
Another (somewhat more niche) piece of trivia: (80s-90s) Poland had its own version of Monopoly called Eurobiznes/Eurobusiness: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurobusiness
The assessor can't the change the share of land vs structure unfairly any more than they can increase the assessed value unfairly. A homeowner can protest the assessment and provide comparable sales and other estimates that show a more objective split of value.
Michigan property taxes are interesting in another way, they have had issues with "dark store" restrictive covenants for commercial and industrial real estate. Basically the owner of a large commercial building argues the land/building has very little value on the open market, it is a single use building with restrictive covenants that prevent an alternative use. These restrictive covenants prevent the land from being sold to their main competitors, and these restrictive covenants are self imposed.
California property tax bills have two components [1][2]:
- structure/improvement assessed value
- land value assessed value
The land value component is re-accessed frequently and changes based on comparables (presumably but its mostly black box).
The question is to what degree/portion of Georgianism to apply and what to do when the land value component starts going up infinitely that its starts hurting the electorate.
Do you introduce alternative tax sources (i.e. income)? Do you introduce caps on annual land value increases or add a bunch of waivers for specific use cases (i.e. primary homes, day cares)?
Or do you just stick with the unrelenting assessed value increases and go free market/no pain no gain/survival of the fittest on the electorate?
Basically Texas is basically the US experiment closest to pure Georgianism.
[1] https://www.propertytax.lacounty.gov/Home/AnnualSecuredPrope...
Or are you suggesting the tax rate will spiral upward infinitely? Again, at some point that just means it’s not worth buying the land unless the productivity possible on it is through the roof as well.
North Texas homeowners getting 'sticker shock' with new property tax appraisals
The question is to what degree/portion of Georgianism to apply and what to do when the land value component starts going up infinitely that its starts hurting the electorate.
- Do you introduce alternative tax sources (i.e. increase income taxes on billionaires instead as in California)?
- Do you introduce caps on annual land value increases (i.e. Prop 13 as in California) or add a bunch of waivers for specific use cases (i.e. primary homes also know as the homestead exception, day cares as they are starting to do in Texas)?
As mentioned I think Texas will be interesting to watch as its pretty close pure Georgianism - the state's revenue is mostly/all LVT property taxes - but they are starting to see exponential growth - so it will be interesting to see if they stick to it or resort to California style Prop 13.
Exempting by use, like primary homes or day cares, now means that the government is in the business of snooping on you to make sure that the primary home you declare is also your actual primary home. You also give well-off people with a bigger primary home (or owning a home at all instead of renting) a big tax break. Welfare for the well-off is not an efficient use of funds.
> - Do you introduce alternative tax sources (i.e. increase income taxes on billionaires instead as in California)?
If you do that, you lower your land value tax take. (Of course, if you already already sabotaged your land value tax base via exemption and limits, as per your second point, then bad decisions beget more bad decisions and special taxes on billionaires seem like a good idea..)
However in reality its a difficult ask to have all people purchasing single family homes to be able to build a 40 year financial model/projection of a regions growth prospects when the buy a home.
Or have them move away from their family and friends support network.
I think Georgianism works best:
- when there's expansive flat land and slow growth and no zoning/resource constraints (i.e. Texas pre-2010).
- you build higher density subsidized housing so people can stay in their neighborhood (i.e. Singapore)
Compare to right now, where every generation can’t afford to live in their own hometown, because there’s only upwards pressure on housing costs, so families and support networks are constantly being torn apart.
OR you have proper planning and build it into the city charter. The city needs to have planned for the locations of future additional schools/recreational infrastructure/transporation a priori and have sufficient resources (water, gas, electricity, sewage).
There also need to be proper addendums to any purchase agreements to highlight the potential for severe property tax increases.
Post facto switchovers to or continuation of pure LVT don't seem like they would work realistically.
Georgism doesn't require that any more than the current system. In fact, for people who haven't already bought a home, the cost under a Georgist system are almost exactly the same as before:
The yearly outlay for owning a place is the same, because market forces will adjust land prices to make it so. The sum of cost of capital plus all taxes is roughly only dependent on demand / what recurring benefit you can derive from the land. Under LVT your mortgage will be smaller, but you have more taxes on the land.
Assume a long time single family home elderly owner on a fixed income (i.e. social security) that had modeled for only linear increases in accessed land value (and associated taxes) but experienced exponential accessed land value appreciation (and tax increases).
Would the proposed solution be for the original long time elderly owner to sell 50% rights to the property in exchange for another future owner to tear down the single home and replace it with a duplex for the original owner and new co-owner to live in together?
Or is the assumption that only well capitalized apartment owners are the only ones who own the land and have the capability to teardown and re-build as more units or renovate and raise rents?
If you stay put and don't move, your property taxes won't go up much. So you can vote for all the govt spending you want: don't move and you won't have to pay for it.
I'm not saying people are "getting away with" low taxes. I'm saying that people are "getting away with" high spending.
There’s no reason why commercial land should get the same benefits.
Bonus points if we can crank up the tax bill on families which inherited their home but never had the money to make improvements.
And the municipalities -- their local elected representatives -- complied. They didn't reduce the millage rate each year to stay revenue neutral. No, they used those funds to supply those desired public goods.
And as land values rose, taxes rose. And eventually, people whose homes were appreciating by half (or 100% or more) of their annual incomes, increasing their home equity at an awesome rate, started objecting to the taxes that were paying for all those public goods.
Remember that in those days, California's colleges and universities were regarded as among the very best. And they changed a lot of lives, particularly of those in the school districts so well funded by those taxes that were ever-rising because the local officials didn't lower the tax rate to remain revenue neutral.
I don't see any sign that California, under Prop 13, has any resemblance to Georgism.
Take a look at a listing at realtor.com for a home in any California city or suburb, and focus on the "Property History" section, on (1) asking and selling prices; and, under that (2) assessment and tax history. (Choose the "see more" option in each section.) Then look at the assessments vs the current asking price. The land and "additions" figures rise by no more than 2% per year, while the asking and selling prices are far above the assessment on which taxes are based.
"The land value component is re-accessed frequently and changes based on comparables (presumably but its mostly black box)." No, they rise by 2% per year, until a sale takes place, at which point their sum is adjusted to the selling price.
But the house next door, of similar age and condition, but not sold in 20 or 40 years, is receiving a huge subsidy, paying a tiny fraction of what the newly sold neighboring buyers are paying.
Where is the equity in that?
The answer, for other states, is not assessment caps or capping taxes at a certain percentage of assessed value, but reducing the millage rate to remain revenue neutral, unless the local property owners approve a millage rate that is higher than revenue neutral because they actively desire more services, better schools, etc.
It's just not purist Georgism.
And even if LVT was the only source of tax income - it could be done at punitive level to prevent all land speculation or be more relaxed.
I think somethings that I haven't seen addressed by pure Georgists:
- Where to stick schools and playgrounds to support the newly built residential towers
- Water/sewage/gas improvements/transportation stresses
- Displaced people who get kicked out of the single family home if no private developer wants to build condos for them
From what I can tell - it'd require proper pre-planned zoning when the city is in its early stages and for the stuff to be written into the city charter.
Or some strong government intervention that could just plop new 3 story schools and 10 store public housing towers where it wants.
So the older residential suburb has become a denser urban city, and the new residential towers are supported by the schools having been rebuilt taller.
And for some value of “works” this does seem to be doable. Most land uses are stackable, though I’ve never personally seen a multi-story gas station.
Our land underwent a reassessment and the value was calculated as “more realistic” (50% more!) but our property taxes went down in absolute dollars because the budget was the same this year, but new houses have been built in the town.
California seems to collect money and then decide where it should go.
[1] https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2022/04/20/property...
"What we're trying to do is value that land as if it were vacant — or that lot — and ready to be put to its highest and best use, which is to build a single-family home on, And we do that by looking at lot sales of what would be a competitive or a substitute product."
In a pure LVT system the structure should play no part. The landowner should be free to build whatever they want on their land without such building causing a change to their taxes. A partial step towards LVT would be a “split rate” system, where the value of the land is taxed at a higher rate, say 5%, than the value of the structures, which could be 0.5%.
Pennsylvania is the example case here in the US:
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/3/6/non-glamorous-g...
The only problem that I can see with this approach is landscaping. It is valuable to have a nice park in the center of a city, if only for the cooling down that it provides, but parks don't make money and land value tax would incentivize people who own them to bulldoze the park and build something in its place.
Perhaps this could be solved with certain exemptions. But these are subject to the usual corruption, e.g. someone leaves a really bad parking lot in place and his friends in the town hall simply categorize it as a park.