I’ve always been Georgism curious, but didn’t know how to handle some of the more obvious challenges so I really want to thank the author for the work here!
I’m curious about how to think about the dynamics of a LVT:
- I can imagine urbanism creating a flocking behavior that ruins neighborhoods in 5-10 year cycles. Coffee shop draws more commence drawing more affluent people pushing up LVT driving out residents faster than even the spectre of “gentrification”, only to collapse when a nearby area is cheaper for a cool coffee shop to start. (The problem specifically is that you’ve both driven out people and caused an inefficient overbuild in each area)
- Similarly how do you think about new uses for land emerging? If I lease desert land for a data center because it’s so perfect for it, instead of buying it … how (and when) does it show up in LTV increases? What if I trade you some other benefit to keep it out of LVT impacting records?
- Are you just costing the world coordination surplus by forcing high value enterprises to distribute themselves (inefficiently) just far enough apart that they don’t drive up each other’s LVT? That’s a deadweight loss.
I’m a fan of the idea - these are just some of the tricky challenges I don’t have a good answer to yet.
Imagine that there's somebody who wants to build unpleasant things. Let's say there's a group "association of people for ugly and genuinely unpleasant buildings" who build their collections of ugly buildings, buying up the cheap land that becomes available as people who no longer want to live near them move out.
Well, that group is rewarded by this system.
I think the problem is really: LVT makes sense, there's no reason to tax buildings, but if it is to be fair, it must actually tax the unimproved land, and this means it can't punish people who buy things next to someone building something attractive and then not doing anything useful with it, so that particular goal, sometimes held up as one of the points of a pure LVT is not achieved.
I don’t see how the people building ugly things would benefit really. If the goal is a factory or something that necessarily has to be ugly building it on low value land makes more sense then lowering the value of high value land. If the goal is just to be a dick, well people already do that by leaving these lots vacant.
Well, if ugliness weren't enough, imagine if they instead did everything to make things unpleasant for people living nearby.
Since that would reduce demand in the area, there's a real risk that we'd infer that the neighbourhood is more inherently undesirable and drop the rates there, even though we shouldn't.
I think you're really basically just saying "but no one would do this". People would absolutely do this. People even do this today in inter-group conflict about who is to live in specific neighbourhoods.
What's the end goal of this "build ugly things and depress land values" strategy? If it's to drive out current residents and buy cheap, to what goal? If, once you have bought cheap, you stop building ugly things and start doing high value things.....then land values go back up and you have defeated your own purpose.
Yeah sure the taxes would go back to normal later, but the people left with deflated property values and a worse neighborhood and potentially leave because of decreasing property values aren't going to feel very good about it.
Also the asshole still saves on the purchase. The taxes go back up, but the sale price of the land was artificially low still. Which benefits the asshole and hurts the original owners.
The only way it doesn't benefit the asshole is if the property is worth zero dollars to sell.
I'm not an LVT expert but I think you are still conflating it with property values and market rates.
The LVT assessment doesn't have to consider whether it is a "desirable place to live" or what the neighbors are like. Only the potential for the land.
A key factor in LVT is the local control of the process. That is the part that can be more easily swung by coalitions with money/power.
rao-v · · focus · HN ↗
I’m curious about how to think about the dynamics of a LVT:
- I can imagine urbanism creating a flocking behavior that ruins neighborhoods in 5-10 year cycles. Coffee shop draws more commence drawing more affluent people pushing up LVT driving out residents faster than even the spectre of “gentrification”, only to collapse when a nearby area is cheaper for a cool coffee shop to start. (The problem specifically is that you’ve both driven out people and caused an inefficient overbuild in each area)
- Similarly how do you think about new uses for land emerging? If I lease desert land for a data center because it’s so perfect for it, instead of buying it … how (and when) does it show up in LTV increases? What if I trade you some other benefit to keep it out of LVT impacting records?
- Are you just costing the world coordination surplus by forcing high value enterprises to distribute themselves (inefficiently) just far enough apart that they don’t drive up each other’s LVT? That’s a deadweight loss.
I’m a fan of the idea - these are just some of the tricky challenges I don’t have a good answer to yet.
impossiblefork · · focus · HN ↗
Imagine that there's somebody who wants to build unpleasant things. Let's say there's a group "association of people for ugly and genuinely unpleasant buildings" who build their collections of ugly buildings, buying up the cheap land that becomes available as people who no longer want to live near them move out.
Well, that group is rewarded by this system.
I think the problem is really: LVT makes sense, there's no reason to tax buildings, but if it is to be fair, it must actually tax the unimproved land, and this means it can't punish people who buy things next to someone building something attractive and then not doing anything useful with it, so that particular goal, sometimes held up as one of the points of a pure LVT is not achieved.
HDThoreaun · · focus · HN ↗
impossiblefork · · focus · HN ↗
Since that would reduce demand in the area, there's a real risk that we'd infer that the neighbourhood is more inherently undesirable and drop the rates there, even though we shouldn't.
I think you're really basically just saying "but no one would do this". People would absolutely do this. People even do this today in inter-group conflict about who is to live in specific neighbourhoods.
MostlyStable · · focus · HN ↗
AngryData · · focus · HN ↗
Also the asshole still saves on the purchase. The taxes go back up, but the sale price of the land was artificially low still. Which benefits the asshole and hurts the original owners.
The only way it doesn't benefit the asshole is if the property is worth zero dollars to sell.
anon84873628 · · focus · HN ↗
The LVT assessment doesn't have to consider whether it is a "desirable place to live" or what the neighbors are like. Only the potential for the land.
A key factor in LVT is the local control of the process. That is the part that can be more easily swung by coalitions with money/power.