Land value tax

[Drawdown]

Interestingly, we have 5 foreclosed homes for every homeless person. 'MERIKA!! But I agree with half of what you said, the rest of the cost is the responsibility of the government. But perhaps the government would be smarter to use more preventive measures rather than reactionary ones. Would cut costs, for sure.

I believe it is empty homes, not foreclosed homes. Many of them are empty because they are falling down slums.

 

[smallvoice]

Ok then, how about we cut spending on the military and police?
We can then use the money to fund better schools, infrastructure and eliminate most tuition fees for older students.

As for a land tax maybe you could implement a system where you find out the average size of a house in the US and only tax people who have houses larger than that or second or more houses in a sliding scale?
This would only tax people with larger houses who can afford a tax while not touching most low and middle class families.

The British already do that, and as a system it sucks. They even have a scheme to tax the number of rooms in a house, so the Brits just don't build closets- they use a wardrobe. Small rooms, wardrobes....not a place we want to go. An ensuite bath is a big deal in the UK for that very reason.
Everyone needs to pay some tax, if for no other reason than to have "skin in the game". But what would keep the government, which has the statistics, from deciding that the "average" house has gotten smaller, so more people will get to pay taxes. Who will have the facts to refute /argue that? Oh! I KNOW! a new government agency to measure the house size...No thanks.

 

[Glitch]

In the 19th century, there was an economic philosophy known as Georgism (or Geoism). To sum it up, they believe in socialism for land and capitalism for everything else. The logic is that while people can produce many stuff with their labor, they did not produce the land. Thus by paying a land value tax, they would be paying rent to mother nature. Georgists use this to argue that there should be a tax on land and that it should be the only tax. The movement died out after the early 20th century and very few jurisdictions ended up embracing this kind of tax.


A land value tax is a tax on land value. It differs from property taxes in that it only taxes the value of land, not anything built on it. I'm somewhat doubtful that this tax could collect enough revenue to replace everything else but it could have positive results. With the revenue collected, it could help reduce fiscal deficits, increase spending, or lower existing taxes. LVT would be progressive in nature because rich people tend to own more total land value with multiple houses and because poor people are more likely to rent. It would also discourage land speculation and instead encourage the efficient use of land. It's also less susceptible to tax evasion because of the full transparency of land value as opposed to personal or corporate income tax. The one issue I see is the potential negative effect on people who are land rich but cash poor such as on independent farmers and on people living in expensive cities (the cost being passed down as increased rent).

You may remember me posting about the consumption tax. A bunch of people pointed out that luxury goods tend to have elastic demand and that rich people would simply cheat the system by importing such goods. This is actually what happened in the early 90s when such as tax was implemented in the US; revenue turned out to be lower than expected. LVT doesn't have this problem because it cannot be moved and because it's not a commodity which is subject to supply and demand.

Depending on where you live, the value of the land is already taxed. Those property taxes are also local, not federal. So they are not used to reduce deficits (which is also not a "positive" result), increase spending, or lower existing taxes. Cutting spending would be a positive result, not paying off more debt.

The value of the land also changes when improvements are made. The value of the land I purchased tripled after I completed my home. That was just the value of the land, not counting the value of those improvements. That meant that my property taxes for that land also tripled. Those property taxes go to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.

If I lived near Delta Junction, however, I wouldn't be paying any property taxes on the land or the home. I wouldn't have any public services either, except for those provided by the State.

 

[Drawdown]

Depending on where you live, the value of the land is already taxed. Those property taxes are also local, not federal. So they are not used to reduce deficits (which is also not a "positive" result), increase spending, or lower existing taxes. Cutting spending would be a positive result, not paying off more debt.

The value of the land also changes when improvements are made. The value of the land I purchased tripled after I completed my home. That was just the value of the land, not counting the value of those improvements. That meant that my property taxes for that land also tripled. Those property taxes go to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.

If I lived near Delta Junction, however, I wouldn't be paying any property taxes on the land or the home. I wouldn't have any public services either, except for those provided by the State.

Not how it is done in our area. Land is taxed rather uniformly, adjusting for acreage, across neighborhoods. For instance, my lots with nothing on them are taxed at the same rate and price as the one with the house as to the land portion. They then tax the buildings at the same rate but based on market value. The land is uniformly taxed on $1K lower value in the neighborhood to the east and $2K higher in the neighborhood to the west.

 

[Glitch]

You can't seriously think that the improvement tax will go away and be replaced with a higher land tax. A typical million dollar home is about 25% land and 75% improvements. And the left believes the rich already don't pay their fair share.

That will last about 2 days.

The value of just my land - not counting any improvements - tripled after I completed building my home. Even still, the value of the land is only 14.3% of the total assessed value of the property. The remaining 85.7% is the assessed value of the improvements made to the property.

People are taxed on the combined assessed value. So everyone is paying their "fair share."

 

[Glitch]

Not how it is done in our area. Land is taxed rather uniformly, adjusting for acreage, across neighborhoods. For instance, my lots with nothing on them are taxed at the same rate and price as the one with the house as to the land portion. They then tax the buildings at the same rate but based on market value. The land is uniformly taxed on $1K lower value in the neighborhood to the east and $2K higher in the neighborhood to the west.

The value of the land varies considerably. You can pay anywhere from $500/acre to $500,000/acre for just the land. The land I purchased in 2003 cost $10,000/acre. After clearing the land, putting in a well and a septic system, and building a home the assessed value of the land tripled to $30,000. Over the last 17 years the assessed value of the improvements to the land have increased in value, but the value of the land itself remains unchanged at $30,000.

In the Mat-Su Borough I pay 18 mills in property taxes. If I did not live in an organized borough, I would not have to pay any property taxes.

 

[Drawdown]

The value of the land varies considerably. You can pay anywhere from $500/acre to $500,000/acre for just the land. The land I purchased in 2003 cost $10,000/acre. After clearing the land, putting in a well and a septic system, and building a home the assessed value of the land tripled to $30,000. Over the last 17 years the assessed value of the improvements to the land have increased in value, but the value of the land itself remains unchanged at $30,000.

In the Mat-Su Borough I pay 18 mills in property taxes. If I did not live in an organized borough, I would not have to pay any property taxes.

Market value and tax value on the land are completely different in our area. Neighborhood to the north runs around $10K a half acre tax value but it sells for around $80K per half acre (when they can find a fool willing to pay it)

 

[Glitch]

Market value and tax value on the land are completely different in our area. Neighborhood to the north runs around $10K a half acre tax value but it sells for around $80K per half acre (when they can find a fool willing to pay it)

That is the case everywhere. People are taxed as the assessed value of the home, not what the market will bear. However, the assessed value does factor in the market value of similar homes recently sold. So if your neighbors are selling their homes for more than the assessed value, you can expect the assessed value of your home to increase, and also your property taxes.

 

[Drawdown]

That is the case everywhere. People are taxed as the assessed value of the home, not what the market will bear. However, the assessed value does factor in the market value of similar homes recently sold. So if your neighbors are selling their homes for more than the assessed value, you can expect the assessed value of your home to increase, and also your property taxes.

But we are discussing land value and in my area that does not often change. They jacked my house value up 10% this year or thereabouts but the land values have not changed for tax purposes a penny in the last 20 years which is as far back as our online tax records go.

 

[jimbo]

Ok then, how about we cut spending on the military and police?
We can then use the money to fund better schools, infrastructure and eliminate most tuition fees for older students.

As for a land tax maybe you could implement a system where you find out the average size of a house in the US and only tax people who have houses larger than that or second or more houses in a sliding scale?
This would only tax people with larger houses who can afford a tax while not touching most low and middle class families.

That is the case everywhere. People are taxed as the assessed value of the home, not what the market will bear. However, the assessed value does factor in the market value of similar homes recently sold. So if your neighbors are selling their homes for more than the assessed value, you can expect the assessed value of your home to increase, and also your property taxes.

In theory at least, assessed value is based on market value.

I'm not sure where you're coming from regarding assessed value factoring into market Almost never is that true.People don't buy based on taxable value. People buy based o the desirability of the property for their needs.

It's true however that if market prices rise, assessed values will follow.

 

[Glitch]

But we are discussing land value and in my area that does not often change. They jacked my house value up 10% this year or thereabouts but the land values have not changed for tax purposes a penny in the last 20 years which is as far back as our online tax records go.

As I previously mentioned the assessed value of my land has also not changed since I made improvements on the land in 2003. It tripled in value after the improvements were made. However, since no further improvements have been made to the land in the last 17 years, the value has remained exactly where it was in 2003. The improvements I made in 2003, however, have increased in assessed value. That is primarily because of the sale of similar properties that were recently sold and similar to mine.

I guarantee that if you want to see the land you own increase in assessed value, make some more improvements. Otherwise the land remains the same assessed value and only the existing improvements increase, or potentially decrease, in assessed value.

Why would the value of the land increase, if you are not making any improvements to the land?

 

[Glitch]

In theory at least, assessed value is based on market value.

I'm not sure where you're coming from regarding assessed value factoring into market Almost never is that true.People don't buy based on taxable value. People buy based o the desirability of the property for their needs.

It's true however that if market prices rise, assessed values will follow.

You have it backwards. What I said was, "if your neighbors are selling their homes for more than the assessed value, you can expect the assessed value of your home to increase, and also your property taxes." Which is the same thing as saying the market value helps determine the assessed value. If you ever think the assessed value is higher than market value, then you can challenge the assessment, but otherwise the assessed value is largely determined by the market value of similar properties that were recently sold.

Intelligent people will always factor in property taxes before purchasing a property. A low mill rate is one of the major "desirability" factors.

 

[ludin]

Land Value Tax is unconstitutional.

It would be double-taxation. We're already paying PROPERTY TAX which is proportional to the VALUE of our property. A Land Value Tax is simply compounded Property Tax.

Phooey.

It's a rterrible idea.

We need to figure out ways to LOWER taxes - - not RAISE them! We are already over-taxed.

What these people don't understand is that the land is already taxed based on it's status.
if i own 10 acres of undeveloped land I am not taxed for just empty land.

The tax assessor hits me with the largest land tax possible. They tax un-used land at "highest and best use".
no matter what I am going to use it for.

 

[Drawdown]

Why would the value of the land increase, if you are not making any improvements to the land?

Inflation. Since it hasn't changed in 20 years, the land is worth less, not more, than it was 20 years ago in real dollars.

 

[Geoist]

Your strawman is running away.

You said 'we can't have what you want' because of the Constitution. I'd like to know why is it, then, you think the Founder's scrapped the Articles (which made federal taxes voluntary) and enforced property tax laws.

So the federal government is the largest land owner in the US how do you expect them to pay the tax on all the land they own.

Why aren't you asking this question now, since we already tax land? LVT is just property tax, only it changes what property is emphasized (land value over improvements). Anyways, as I said before, citizens should be paid a dividend based on the value of that federal land. That would be the government's own 'tax.'

Yet another strawman.

How is that a strawman?

Alaska isn't paying a dime. the money that goes out is profit sharing that oil companies pay. The state pays 0.

Alaska's government could take that money like most government's and have it go into the state coffers. Instead, they are sending it to the citizens. They are indeed paying the citizens because those profits come from federal land that is leased to oil companies.

Again it is called a figure of speech.

"Again?" You never claimed to be using figure of speech. Why try and be hyperbolic?

land value is not constant. it is always changing yes it can change that fast look at the 2018 real estate crash. homes worth 500k lost 50% of their value. so don't say it doesn't happen because it does.

Unemployment numbers are always changing, and yet opponents never say "we should get rid of income tax because unemployment numbers are volatile." Your arguments are silly.

 

[Geoist]

Not a one of those links makes an economic argument, in fact both make a series of assumptions without much else to back up the case.

You made a claim and I provided counterclaims. Tell me why should I choose the baseless claims of random internet poster "ORPHAN SLUG" over the opinions of economists and organizations that have studied the matter?

 

[Geoist]

Land Value Tax is unconstitutional.

It would be double-taxation. We're already paying PROPERTY TAX which is proportional to the VALUE of our property. A Land Value Tax is simply compounded Property Tax.

Phooey.

It's a rterrible idea.

We need to figure out ways to LOWER taxes - - not RAISE them! We are already over-taxed.

Land value tax is proposed by geoists/georgists who want to REPLACE property tax (and other taxes) with it. It would not be double-taxation. So there goes your baseless accusation.

 

[iguanaman]

Funny you should mention poor land use. I have a friend, business acquaintance really, who builds strip malls. I asked him once why he didn't just rehab the dozen or so abandoned strip malls in our neck of the woods, instead of building new. He said, because of all the combined costs of actual rehab, and the maze of permits, regulations, inspections, etc., it was a lot cheaper to build new a couple miles down the road. Ironically, a couple of the abandoned ones are strip malls he built not so many years ago.

What he means is that declaring bankruptcy and leaving the costs of removing the old buildings to State is cheaper. Demolition is not cheap.

 

[iguanaman]

Land value tax is proposed by geoists/georgists who want to REPLACE property tax (and other taxes) with it. It would not be double-taxation. So there goes your baseless accusation.

We tax things we want less of and taxing land would devalue it. The progressive taxing of income is the only fair way to raise revenue in a capitalist system. In the 21st century money is the new land. The "landed gentry" is more of a 16th century concept.

In the 21st century, the term "landed gentry" is still used, as the landowning class still exists, but it increasingly refers more to historic than to current landed wealth or property in a family. Moreover, the deference which was once automatically given to members of this class by most British people has almost completely dissipated as its wealth, political power and social influence have declined, and other social figures such as celebrities have grown to take their place in the public's interest.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lande... gentry, or simply,least had a country estate.

 

[Geoist]

I believe it is empty homes, not foreclosed homes. Many of them are empty because they are falling down slums.

Actually, it seems there are 31 vacant housing units for every homeless person in America, as of 2019. You're right that many probably wouldn't even pass regulations, but this is where local and state governments need to step in and rehabilitate or rebuild these areas.

 

[Geoist]

We tax things we want less of and taxing land would devalue it. The progressive taxing of income is the only fair way to raise revenue in a capitalist system. In the 21st century money is the new land.

We absolutely should tax things we want less of. We should want less land speculation which is what drives up land prices and makes it harder for younger people to buy houses/land.

 

[ludin]

You made a claim and I provided counterclaims. Tell me why should I choose the baseless claims of random internet poster "ORPHAN SLUG" over the opinions of economists and organizations that have studied the matter?

Yes I did, because private property is guaranteed right in the constitution.
Which invalidates any socialist view that land is a community owned thing.

Next the constitution prohibits the double taxation which is what you would be doing.

 

[Geoist]

Yes I did, because private property is guaranteed right in the constitution.
Which invalidates any socialist view that land is a community owned thing.

Socialist like Thomas Paine??? who said, " Men did not make the earth ... it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds. "

DAMN, COMMIE!!!

There is nothing in the Constitution that restricts government from taxing land which is WHY WE HAVE HAD PROPERTY TAXES SINCE THE DAYS OF THE FOUNDERS AND PRIOR!!

Next the constitution prohibits the double taxation which is what you would be doing.

I want the land value tax to replace property tax (and ideally other taxes), not be in addition to.

 

[iguanaman]

We absolutely should tax things we want less of. We should want less land speculation which is what drives up land prices and makes it harder for younger people to buy houses/land.

You want to increase taxes on land making it harder to own. Make up your mind.

 

[Geoist]

You want to increase taxes on land making it harder to own. Make up your mind.

Current property taxes tax both land value AND improvements (e.g. your house). LVT would lower or eliminate the tax on the house and raise the tax on the land value itself. Most homeowners would actually see their tax lowered.

(70-80) Studies showed that homeowners saved on property taxes with a two-rate building-to-land shift in nine of eleven cities. The cities were Fresno CA, all cities in Oregon, Bergen County (in N.J.), Pittsburgh, Erie, Harrisburg, and Allentown in Pa., Korumburra and South Melbourne in Australia. Homeowners paid slightly more in Farrell and Monessen, Pa. (but not Monessen today). See IT, 10/78.

Saving Communities