Economics Land Value Tax

Winston Bush

Well-known member
A land value tax or location value tax, also called a site valuation tax, split rate tax, or site-value rating, is an ad valorem levy on the unimproved value of land. Unlike property taxes, it disregards the value of buildings, personal property and other improvements to real estate.It is also one of the main goals of georgism. Now that we know what it is,let me ask are you for or against LVT?
A. For
B. Against
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
It is a strong disincentive for long term investments. There are some forms of land capital that have a very slow value on return, like tree farming. It also is a strong disincentive against multi-generational wealth, which is one of the main paths of upward class mobility.

There are other problems, like nature reserves, private monuments, and land held by charities. Basically any type of investment in land that does not have a cash return is harmed.
 

ShieldWife

Marchioness
Let Gollum speak on my behalf...



Yeah, this is terrible. This policy would be like the left wing’s cartoon version of conservatives: take away the family farm or grandpa’s lumber mill and give it to billionaire developers to squeeze every last once of profit from it, with little to no taxation.

This is a regressive tax, where the super wealthy pay essentially nothing and lower or middle class people are taxed into oblivion - forced from their homes, family farms, and ancestral lands which will be bought up by big corporations for pennies on the dollar. It discourages community and conservative living, it punishes thrift and rewards avarice. It encourages irresponsible land use, environmental destruction, over-consumption of resources, and temporary profits over long term investments. It is a savage attack against rural communities in favor of not just the urban, but the to the benefit of the very richest and most exploitive urbanites.

It violates one of my core principles of what conservatism should be - leave people the hell alone. Because this kind of tax wouldn’t leave people alone, it seeks to destroy people who want to be left alone. If we have a poor rural family living off the grid and eating mainly food they grow themselves, this tax takes away that land and gives it to Captain Planet villains to strip mine.

Say what you will about income taxes, it has many flaws, but replacing it with this sort of tax would be so so so vastly worse it’s almost incomprehensible. It would be like some kind of dystopia with impoverished masses huddled in densely packed urban slums while trillionaires wipe their butts with silk on toilets made of precious jewels.

So, what I’m trying to get at here in my own subtle way, is that I’m not a fan of this.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
How do you determine the value of land when ignoring the buildings though? Does the value go up if it's next to convenient shopping and entertainment, and down if an airport or landfill is placed next to it? If so how does it take those things into account but not the improvements to the land itself? If not is it a flat cost per acre? And will anybody, ever, buy the land next to an eyesore if that's the case?
 
Why? What’s your reasoning?


because a man has a right to his own land. and nothing will keep the government to adding loopholes and stipulations that will just make it property tax lite. I wish I could get this through people's skulls. Big Government (and sometimes small government) is not efficiant, it's not benovolent and it doesin't exist for your benifit. It exist so that .0001 percent of the population can look down from thier ivory tower while the rest of the world burns for the rest of us. And contrary to what Marx promised, that includes communism.
 

liberty90

Evil Neoliberal Cat
How do you determine the value of land when ignoring the buildings though?

I dimly remember a method used to determine value of taxed trade goods in one of medieval cities (perhaps it was a member of the Hanseatic League?): it was a trader that declared value of a trade good for purposes of a tax, but if authorities thought that it's a curiously low value, they had a right to buy for exactly this amount of money.

As to charities, or forests, or agricultural land, funny thing - American income tax code is composed out of many books with thustands of exeptions (the same is the case in Europe and in my country). You could as well exempt farmers, forests, monuments and people with low income from LVT.
 

liberty90

Evil Neoliberal Cat
I dimly remember a method used to determine value of taxed trade goods in one of medieval cities (perhaps it was a member of the Hanseatic League?): it was a trader that declared value of a trade good for purposes of a tax, but if authorities thought that it's a curiously low value, they had a right to buy for exactly this amount of money.

I must cite myself, because obviously after a few minutes of thinking I see a problem with my own words. The idea is interesting, but it would be still hard to exempt buildings and improvements in this case. Uh-huh.

There was a XIX century economist, Henry George, that was a great supporter of the LVT. Maybe I should try to read his works (or at least a summary) in spare time to see what exactly was his solution. Certainly he was a Single Tax advocate and opposed all other forms of taxation.
 

UberSink

Well-known member
I dimly remember a method used to determine value of taxed trade goods in one of medieval cities (perhaps it was a member of the Hanseatic League?): it was a trader that declared value of a trade good for purposes of a tax, but if authorities thought that it's a curiously low value, they had a right to buy for exactly this amount of money.

If I remember correctly something similar happened in Cuba.

Corps valued everything super low to pay less taxes, then the government nationalized them for what they said they were worth, pretty funny at the end of the day despite the circumstances
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
It seems like the sietch is relatively split on this tax. So i propose another thing to debate.
Taxing Churches.
A. For.
B. Against.
1) Most churches don't make much money, relying on donations.
2) Arbitrary appraisals would make it easy to oppress a religion quietly.
3) This would favor the most monetary, and thus corrupt, religious institutions.
4) Graveyards.
 

Hlaalu Agent

Nerevar going to let you down
Founder
It seems like the sietch is relatively split on this tax. So i propose another thing to debate.
Taxing Churches.
A. For.
B. Against.

Against, I think religions and certain non-profits should be tax exempt due to their role in society. Though I am thinking this is just the big taxes, property and sales might be doable- though property taxes might just shred a number of churches so...

I do have a problem with faiths enriching themselves off of their members, but I don't want to punish religions that use their wealth for good for the actions of religions that do this, and there are religions that do this and do great good as well *cough* Catholicism *cough*
 

Abhishekm

Well-known member
You know if you do you kinda have to start taxing all non-profits too? Well not saying thats a bad thing, just that its kinda hand in hand.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top