Progress & Poverty part 2

[DCUPtoejuice]

the rental value of the land would be impossible to determine, it would be up to beaurocrats to decide, because you would no longer have a market value.

[DCUPtoejuice]

On top of that, when I've taken the land "for free" and build a beautiful house on it, then what happens when I want to sell it? Am I supposed to give it away for free, or should I be able to recover the financial investment in the home? If so, how in the world would you distinguish from the total value of the land plus the home to be sure the next guy in line to get his "free land" wasn't paying for land.

[theduffharp]

The land is not free you are liable for the annual landrent, a paying for the locational amenities that you enjoy, it just has little or no selling value. Give away your beautiful house? That's noble but theduff would get whatever high price he could get. If we could not separate the land and house value, then no insurance company could offer house insurance if your house burnt down. Yet they all do. Follow? Fire doesn't burn away your land value. Land values,rents are therefore easily assessed.

[wtfitzgerald]

Assessors and real estate speculators are absolutely capable of determining very accurately the value of land as distinguished from the value of the improvement. Perhaps assessment is not an absolutely exact science but it works well enough to put this idea into practice acceptable to the vast majority.

[bluepearlamma]

There would be no giving away of the value of your home, a value you created. That is the value you are entitled to. You are not entitled to the community created value of the land. You have title and use of the land; you just don't get to keep a value you did not create. All incentive to speculate with land therefore disappears. People have incentive to add real value to their improvement under this scenario. Cities rebuild and sprawl ceases. Frequent reassessments capture all land value.

[bluepearlamma]

No more market value is correct. You have put your finger on a very interesting feature of the issue of collecting community created land value. Yes the market value of land would drop to near zero but the market rent of land would still remain and be ascertainable. It is the collection of the yearly rent of land that is the object of this proposal. Keep your house untaxed and sell it for full value when you sell. You transfer title to the land but do not pocket its community created value.

[bluepearlamma]

The science and practice of the valuation of real estate in general and land values in particular distinct from the value of improvements is well developed. It is true that high taxation of land values drives the market price of land down, theoretically to zero, but that does not mean that landowners stop charging rent. On the contrary they will charge market rent to pay the land value tax. The assessment of the rental value of land is part of the practice of property assessment in general.

[DCUPtoejuice]

I would venture to say that the science and practice of the valuation of real estate is founded on the values that are set by the market. Remove the market and those values are no longer available for use, unless you want to base everything off past values when market forces dominated.

[bluepearlamma]

When the purchase price of land is reduced by the taxation of land values what remains is the rental value of land that landowners will and do charge whether or not there is a property tax assessed. The rental value which is related to the use value of land and locations stays constant and will continue to go up and down with the market. Yes, assessors will no longer be able to rely on the market price for the purchase of land but they will be able to easily determine what the rental value is.

[DCUPtoejuice]

this sounds insane. The government would be arbitrarily deciding the cost of your rent. I would rather buy and sell land on the market like it is now and just educate people about the risks of buying overvalued land.

[heliad]

Please keep in mind, that are taxes are tools of policy, encouraging some activities, and discouraging others.

[DCUPtoejuice]

yes they are. Your plan takes ownership away from individuals and gives it to the collective. The best scenario is to make the people wealthier so they can afford to buy land without huge mortgages and educate them to prevent poor investment decisions.

[wtfitzgerald]

No, ownership of the land would stay intact. No one's private and exclusive right to possess and use land would be disturbed. The only thing that would be done by way of disturbing ownership is to take back to the community, the value of land that the community, gives to land.

[theduffharp]

Mr toejuice try to think it through. If everyone becomes wealthier land which is fixed in supply around desirable locations, will simply rise by the same amount or even speculatively higher! Has the penny dropped? The people will never become wealthier! When you buy a site you're paying for infrastructure provided by gov't. Intead of paying the gov't for a site we pay a private individual and so the gov't now says, "sorry Mr toejuice we need revenue so we have to tax you. Please think toejuice

[theduffharp]

toejuice the reason for the huge mortgages and the whole housing affordability meltdown in the U$ is that we allow land to be speculated in for personal gain. It gets bid up ever higher. If land was taxed at the full rental value then land would sell for zilch, nothing. Result? No bubble, no recession, housing cheaper and rents cheaper as more vacant sites come onto the market.

[wtfitzgerald]

Even though these comments are couched in the language of taxation the idea of land value taxation really is in fact the idea of asking land owners to pay for the value of services the community actually provides to land. Otherwise land owners get an unearned value which they keep at the expense of the community and their fellow man. This "tax" would discourage land specualtion, urban sprawl and all other forms of environmental abuse.

[wtfitzgerald]

This system relies completely on the market to tell everyone including the government what the value of land and hence its rental value is. Everyone including the government would have access to information about the real value of land by looking at the market. If government assessors got it wrong land owners would and could challenge it just the way they do today all current property tax systems.

[dalecampbl9]

as the population grows  beyond 7 billion, we are going to have to change the way to view "private" property.

[DCUPtoejuice]

@dalecampbl9 that is a farce. Although public property will always be needed. You assume unequal wealth distribution which will be a major challenge.

[lvtfan]

see wealthandwant dot com for more on these ideas!

[eagleboy333]

the wisdom continues!!!

thanks so much for sharing Wendell with us all!!