Yeah, because the value of your land just went up and you didn't do anything to make that happen. Only right that excess value goes back to society and reduces the tax burden of the working class.
If you're a professional landowner and investor, and the taxes on one parcel of land in your portfolio went up because someone built Disneyland near it, this is fine. You might want to sell that parcel out of your portfolio now; or you might want to do something like build a hotel on it catering to Disneyland-visitors, which will earn you enough in profits to more than make up for the higher land tax.
If you're an ordinary person who owns the home you live in, and they build Disneyland next to it, most of the ways that the value of the land your home is on increases are useless or actively harmful to you. It's actively bad for you if you have to sell your family home and move somewhere else because you can no longer afford the taxes on it. You're probably not a professional real estate developer who knows how to effectively use the land as an investment, after all, you just wanted to live somewhere stable.
In fact, the increase of value of your land and the consequent tax increase under Georgist land value schemes, would be so bad for you, that you might decide to protestthe construction of that Disneyland to begin with. This is typically called "NIMBYism", and it happens all the time even under current property-tax schemes because the negative externalities of many different types of construction are bad for the quality of life of existing homeowners.
> It's actively bad for you if you have to sell your family home and move somewhere else because you can no longer afford the taxes on it.
But it's no problem of course that several generations of people currently can never afford to own a home of their own even though they contribute enormously to the economy and to society through their highly productive labour?
Ten times more people have already been forced to move away from where they grew up because of real estate prices than would ever have to be forced to move away because of land value taxes.
A hundred times more people can never afford a home because of real estate prices than would ever have to be forced to sell their homes because of land value taxes.
Or you can.. you know, sell the now expensive property, buy one cheaper which doesn't have such appreciation, and enjoy those sweet money gained by doing nothing (well almost). If you invested in stock and gained significantly, you should also not be taxed more on those gains (and even more in tax progressive regimes in most jurisdictions)? Wealth is wealth at the end, you gain more, you pay taxes.
I get it, people are inherently selfish, most don't want to give back to society more than absolutely minimum to keep them from prison, and this mentality is way more common in US or most of 3rd world than say Europe. But then don't complain when state institutions like public schools and healthcare are utter crap, something about cake and stuff.
Why is it assumed true that individuals do not contribute to the increasing appeal of their neighborhood?
What if I voted for pro-theme park politicians? Or what if I volunteered my time to clean up the community parks and shared space? What if I helped improve the reputation of my child’s school by volunteering and donating to the music department?
My taxes fund the maintenance of public infrastructure and services, and my actions support the civic good. If I vote to be cheap or generous with taxes, or choose to be lazy or ambitious in community support, that all contributes to the desirability of the land around me.
> Why is it assumed true that individuals do not contribute to the increasing appeal of their neighborhood?
Two things are true:
1. I should have been more precise in my language. "You didn't do anything to make that happen" is a useful generality and not a prescription of every single individual in the community. In this case, we're talking about fairness - which I don't actually care much about myself, but is a point that people most often can emotionally identify with. But, to continue, if you're carrying all that water on behalf of your land value, then good for you! You likely have an existing stake in the community, other than the land that you own (maybe the businesses or houses or other property built on that land or you own a local services business). That is great! The fairness comes from owning the finite resource of land, and not something others can provide (housing, businesses, etc.). I hope you do continue to contribute to your local community and increase its appeal!
2. Your fixation on this point reveals a very fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of an LVT (surely partially my fault). It has to do with efficient taxation. Dollar equal, it's better that your taxes come from the value of the fixed resources of your community rather than things that can be increased. Because then you don't have a depressing effect on productivity and the things, other than land, that make your community nice. It's better that you keep more money from the things you _do_ for your community instead of the monopolies you hold in your community.
Liquidity is a value of its own. 10% equity in a $1M non-fungible residentially-zoned lot is much less valuable than $100K in cash, ready to wire at a moment's notice.
"the value of your land just went up and you didn't do anything to make that happen"
Ben, with that argument, when someone wants to pay you $1M for "bengarcia.dev", you would not take it because you didn't do anything other than pay $12 to the registrar.
If you don't want to pay the taxes, thanks to Disneyland you can now sell your land for a nice fat gain, buy cheaper land elsewhere, and pocket the difference. And whoever bought your land will likely use it for the social good (maybe build a hotel or something).
I would imagine that if Disneyland were built next door, that might be in the cards regardless of the tax situation...
It's just a reality of life that not every homeowner can possibly be entitled to fully control what gets done with the land around them, and that's going to cause some friction.
It's a difficult job to navigate who gets to decide what, while still enabling necessary development. LVT is just one of the more elegant ways to do this.
Obviously. If you live in a single family home next door to Disneyland you’re ducking over all the people who want to stay in a hotel there. You should have to pay for that privilege.
Yeah, because the value of your land just went up and you didn't do anything to make that happen. Only right that excess value goes back to society and reduces the tax burden of the working class.
If you're a professional landowner and investor, and the taxes on one parcel of land in your portfolio went up because someone built Disneyland near it, this is fine. You might want to sell that parcel out of your portfolio now; or you might want to do something like build a hotel on it catering to Disneyland-visitors, which will earn you enough in profits to more than make up for the higher land tax.
If you're an ordinary person who owns the home you live in, and they build Disneyland next to it, most of the ways that the value of the land your home is on increases are useless or actively harmful to you. It's actively bad for you if you have to sell your family home and move somewhere else because you can no longer afford the taxes on it. You're probably not a professional real estate developer who knows how to effectively use the land as an investment, after all, you just wanted to live somewhere stable.
In fact, the increase of value of your land and the consequent tax increase under Georgist land value schemes, would be so bad for you, that you might decide to protestthe construction of that Disneyland to begin with. This is typically called "NIMBYism", and it happens all the time even under current property-tax schemes because the negative externalities of many different types of construction are bad for the quality of life of existing homeowners.
OK great make a homestead exemption. Lots of those already.
You can always make exemptions/reliefs for people whose only property is their one house.
And besides, selling it earns you more money, so you're still not losing out (fair enough that you might not want to move out, but still)
You can defer your property taxes and have them paid out of the proceeds when you sell your home/land.
3 replies →
> It's actively bad for you if you have to sell your family home and move somewhere else because you can no longer afford the taxes on it.
But it's no problem of course that several generations of people currently can never afford to own a home of their own even though they contribute enormously to the economy and to society through their highly productive labour?
Ten times more people have already been forced to move away from where they grew up because of real estate prices than would ever have to be forced to move away because of land value taxes.
A hundred times more people can never afford a home because of real estate prices than would ever have to be forced to sell their homes because of land value taxes.
Or you can.. you know, sell the now expensive property, buy one cheaper which doesn't have such appreciation, and enjoy those sweet money gained by doing nothing (well almost). If you invested in stock and gained significantly, you should also not be taxed more on those gains (and even more in tax progressive regimes in most jurisdictions)? Wealth is wealth at the end, you gain more, you pay taxes.
I get it, people are inherently selfish, most don't want to give back to society more than absolutely minimum to keep them from prison, and this mentality is way more common in US or most of 3rd world than say Europe. But then don't complain when state institutions like public schools and healthcare are utter crap, something about cake and stuff.
Why is it assumed true that individuals do not contribute to the increasing appeal of their neighborhood?
What if I voted for pro-theme park politicians? Or what if I volunteered my time to clean up the community parks and shared space? What if I helped improve the reputation of my child’s school by volunteering and donating to the music department?
My taxes fund the maintenance of public infrastructure and services, and my actions support the civic good. If I vote to be cheap or generous with taxes, or choose to be lazy or ambitious in community support, that all contributes to the desirability of the land around me.
> Why is it assumed true that individuals do not contribute to the increasing appeal of their neighborhood?
Two things are true: 1. I should have been more precise in my language. "You didn't do anything to make that happen" is a useful generality and not a prescription of every single individual in the community. In this case, we're talking about fairness - which I don't actually care much about myself, but is a point that people most often can emotionally identify with. But, to continue, if you're carrying all that water on behalf of your land value, then good for you! You likely have an existing stake in the community, other than the land that you own (maybe the businesses or houses or other property built on that land or you own a local services business). That is great! The fairness comes from owning the finite resource of land, and not something others can provide (housing, businesses, etc.). I hope you do continue to contribute to your local community and increase its appeal!
2. Your fixation on this point reveals a very fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of an LVT (surely partially my fault). It has to do with efficient taxation. Dollar equal, it's better that your taxes come from the value of the fixed resources of your community rather than things that can be increased. Because then you don't have a depressing effect on productivity and the things, other than land, that make your community nice. It's better that you keep more money from the things you _do_ for your community instead of the monopolies you hold in your community.
4 replies →
Liquidity is a value of its own. 10% equity in a $1M non-fungible residentially-zoned lot is much less valuable than $100K in cash, ready to wire at a moment's notice.
"the value of your land just went up and you didn't do anything to make that happen"
Ben, with that argument, when someone wants to pay you $1M for "bengarcia.dev", you would not take it because you didn't do anything other than pay $12 to the registrar.
You would take it and then you would pay some tax.
3 replies →
What if the person who owns the land is working class? That’s who property taxes hit the hardest, working class people with a mortgage.
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/how-higher-prope...
The Federal Reserve's research suggests higher property taxes help the young and the working class by improving the immediate affordability of homes.
3 replies →
Makes sense to me.
If you don't want to pay the taxes, thanks to Disneyland you can now sell your land for a nice fat gain, buy cheaper land elsewhere, and pocket the difference. And whoever bought your land will likely use it for the social good (maybe build a hotel or something).
So through no plan of my own, I get to uproot my family. That is indeed great
/s
I would imagine that if Disneyland were built next door, that might be in the cards regardless of the tax situation...
It's just a reality of life that not every homeowner can possibly be entitled to fully control what gets done with the land around them, and that's going to cause some friction.
It's a difficult job to navigate who gets to decide what, while still enabling necessary development. LVT is just one of the more elegant ways to do this.
1 reply →
Through no plan of your own, you now have $1M - tax free. I am currently playing the world's smallest violin.
9 replies →
Obviously. If you live in a single family home next door to Disneyland you’re ducking over all the people who want to stay in a hotel there. You should have to pay for that privilege.