How in the world would we measure "historical value produced for the community"?
How in the world would we measure "historical value produced for the community"?
RX Reven' said:Any mechanism to get the properties transferred from the "haves" to the "wants" is just some form of redistribution...we've heard all kinds of schemes proposed in this thread but, in my mind, it all comes down to "you have something I want, hand it over cheap".
If the only reason the thing isn't cheap is because the value has been increased through artificial scarcity or that an exploit chain of tax loopholes allows them to work as a tax shelter when kept out of use, then I don't see how it's unfair to fix those issues so that it may be handed over at a FMV of "cheap" . Especially when the thing is a basic need for the continuing function of a healthy society.
SV reX said:How in the world would we measure "historical value produced for the community"?
I'm not quite sure what he meant by that. I can try to get him to clarify.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
Except it's not.
He's talking about vacant buildings. They are not a basic need for the continuing functioning of a healthy society. They are out of service.
In reply to pheller :
I don't think you need to. It's clearly a subjective opinion, regardless of what his answer is.
GameboyRMH said:RX Reven' said:Any mechanism to get the properties transferred from the "haves" to the "wants" is just some form of redistribution...we've heard all kinds of schemes proposed in this thread but, in my mind, it all comes down to "you have something I want, hand it over cheap".
If the only reason the thing isn't cheap is because the value has been increased through artificial scarcity or that an exploit chain of tax loopholes allows them to work as a tax shelter when kept out of use, then I don't see how it's unfair to fix those issues so that it may be handed over at a FMV of "cheap" . Especially when the thing is a basic need for the continuing function of a healthy society.
Exactly.
There is this belief that all land somehow is valued the same. That's just not true, obviously.
If you're hoarding land that is valuable to someone else, and the only reason you own that land is because your father's father's father acquired that land hundreds of years ago, you are denying the use of that land to future generations unless they pay you for it. That's negatively impacting society. We could essentially "progress" if it weren't for your rent seeking.
It is often assumed that higher rents mean higher value. As we're seeing with intentional vacancies, that's not also true. Just because you're charging higher rents to a view tenants doesn't mean that suddenly you're in a high value area. If your keeping property vacant because you will only take premium rents, you shouldn't escape the taxes appropriate for the value of that property just because you can't find a tenant. The value of that land is more than just your rent, it's the value of the economic potential of the land.
Property taxes should be levied on economic potential via LVT (land value tax).
SV reX said:In reply to pheller :
I don't think you need to. It's clearly a subjective opinion, regardless of what his answer is.
Unless we're talking pure economics, I think it's all subjective opinions.
Economists seem to agree that LVT would be a better way of handling property taxes, but they aren't politically popular because they are difficult to find loopholes around. You own land in a valuable area, you get taxed on the land, not on the value of the structure. It doesn't matter how much you charge in rent, or if the structure was built 100 years ago and has fallen derelict, you still pay a tax bill relative to the economic potential of that land.
Until we get LVT, I'll take vacancy taxes instead.
SV reX said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
Except it's not.
He's talking about vacant buildings. They are not a basic need for the continuing functioning of a healthy society. They are out of service.
The space doesn't become less of a basic need because it's been taken out of service for use as a tax shelter. If I was on a spaceship and I decided to take a lot of the water "out of service" by using it to make a giant jello statue of myself, that certainly wouldn't make water less of a basic need.
If vacant buildings bother you that much, buy them and rent them out. It's pretty simple.
007's Quantum of Solace actually uses that for a plot.
The villain wishes to acquire water rights and dam up 60% of Bolivia's fresh water. They misdirected by acting interested in oil, only to have water as the main exploitative target.
It actually happened in Bolivia during the mid 2000s, when investors bought up water rights and started charging locals higher prices.
It's the same deal - just because there is lots of water on earth doesn't mean it's ethical to exploit a more regional market of it.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
Commercial space is not a basic need. Never has been.
Businesses can operate in many kind of spaces.
Commercial space is not residential space, and generally can't be effectively used as such at a cost that makes any kind of sense.
We've been through this.
The commercial vs. residential space seems like another artificial scarcity issue to me. Commercial space has been re-zoned before, many hipster condos are built in old factories. Just as jello statue water could be drinking water.
In reply to Steve_Jones :
Perhaps this would be simple for you to understand.
Lets say that salt water aquariums are banned. You want a salt water aquarium. I tell you to move someplace where they aren't illegal.
Would you sooner move, say, to another country, in order to have a salt water aquarium, or would you rather change that laws that prevent it?
Sometimes, the system is rigged against those who are ethical. The first step should not be compete unethically within unethical system, instead, the system should be made so that ethical players in the market have an advantage, even if their profits are lower, and unethical players are removed from it.
The point of this thread, it's even in the post title, is that some of us believe that the system is unethical because it does not maximize the efficient use of land.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
I don't know... I've worked on too many projects to demolish unused buildings so the owners can stop paying taxes on them to worry too much about investors holding on to empty buildings for tax purposes.
Right, but the land itself is still worth something, and more than likely your clients held onto the land.
Because the structure itself was worthless, but the land was still worth soemthing, otherwise they wouldn't have removed the tax burden of the structure but kept the raw land.
The nice thing about LVT is that in the case of a developer who had land with a worthless structure on it, he could demolish the structure, but he'd still get charged the same rate. He'd have incentives to either sell the land (maybe at a loss) to someone who intended to use it, or he himself would redevelop the property into a more regionally important use - like housing.
In reply to pheller :
In the case of the projects I work on, the "land" is part of a massive campus, so the land use doesn't change. Sometimes they construct a building, they do what they need to do with it, and knocking it down and starting over is easier/cheaper than trying to re-purpose it.
pheller said:If you're hoarding land that is valuable to someone else, and the only reason you own that land is because your father's father's father acquired that land hundreds of years ago, you are denying the use of that land to future generations unless they pay you for it. That's negatively impacting society. We could essentially "progress" if it weren't for your rent seeking.
Sooooo... as many people have pointed out numerous times, what this really comes down to is that you can't stand rich people not doing what you think they should do.
And what you think they should do is give away their property to others you deem more worthy. Or at least sell at a value that you deem appropriate.
Really, you can dress it up as philosophically as you want. But 30-odd pages in, you're still tap dancing around instead of just admitting that.
In reply to pheller :
I guess it would depend on how bad I wanted one, if moving is the only option, then I'd have to move if I wanted one. What I wouldn't do is just complain that it's not fair that I don't have one and others who moved do have them. There is nothing holding you back from buying a commercial building. What gives you the right to decide who is ethical and what the most efficient use of land is? If I decide that the most efficient use of the land your house is on is a park, do I have the right to take it from you? Parks are for the children, won't you think of the children?
This thread is 2 years old and the only solution I have seen you post is to take it from the people that own it and give it to those who don't because YOU have 'a better use for it"
In reply to GameboyRMH :
Hipster condos are NEVER cheap.
You keep confusing the "ideals" you have, with the fact that THIS idea is cost prohibitive.
I never said it can't be done. I said it doesn't make sense.
Why would anyone (or any government) convert unused commercial space to low cost residential at 4-5 times the cost of building ACTUAL residential from scratch??
In reply to pheller :
And you still haven't adequately explained why it's ethical that anyone should be compelled to do anything at all with their property.
Let alone discussed what happens when whoever gets to be in charge of that decides you're not using YOUR property to its fullest potential.
Ethics are exactly that.
Subjective ideals of how the world should be.
If you believe that a property owner, with a stack of potential rental applicants, should be able to withstand financial pressure to keep a property vacant, instead of leasing it at a lower rate, because the system allows it, then you believe that land should be able to be used inefficiently.
And that's ok. I just disagree with that idea. I think land with high demand should be used efficiently. I have no problem with unvaluable land sitting vacant so long as land tax adequately represent the economic value of the land. Call me a Georgist, and Single Taxer, and Geoliberatarian.
SV reX said:Why would anyone (or any government) convert unused commercial space to low cost residential at 4-5 times the cost of building ACTUAL residential from scratch??
One good reason I can think of is location. If people want low-cost housing in dense urban areas so that service workers can afford to live and work there so that the place isn't a dysfunctional ghost town (prime example: San Francisco), paying extra to build the housing where it's needed, on former commercial space, could be a decent value vs. building new residential in the next closest location, likely a ridiculous commute away.
It's not about compelling - it about a system of taxation that more fairly applies a tax to the LAND not the structure on it.
"Thomas Paine's 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice: "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements 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".
Too much of our land tax system is now rooted in structural values, not the land itself.
I have a different proposal as a solution to the problem you are identifying.
As I see it, houses are unaffordable in Flagstaff AZ. The largest percentage of real estate is dedicated to single family homes which are grossly underutilized. Families of only 4 people are living in spaces of 2800-3500 SF or more. This is a gross waste of space. It's 4 times as much space as most people in the world have ever had. Obviously, we would utilize our resources far more efficiently if occupancy rates in these poorly utilized spaces was increased.
I suggest a tax to any residence that houses people with more than 200 SF per person. This will increase the density, and therefore serve the needs of society much better. Reduce waste. Reduce the impact on the planet. Effective immediately, we should tax people in Flagstaff based on their square footage/ occupancy ratio.
Since this will probably cause selfish and greedy people to have more children just so they can keep their bigger houses for themselves, this tax should be levied in conjunction with a limit on the number of children allowed per household.
It works well in China. It should work well in Flagstaff.
You'll need to log in to post.
