Unimproved land tax

[kernals12]

Henry George over a century ago pointed out the absurdity of profits from land appreciation. The value of land goes up, not because of the owners' investments, but because of sheer luck, a new freeway gets built or oil gets discovered. We should levy a tax on the value of unimproved land and then use it to pay out a dividend.

[SectorZ]

Henry George over a century ago pointed out the absurdity of profits from land appreciation. The value of land goes up, not because of the owners' investments, but because of sheer luck, a new freeway gets built or oil gets discovered. We should levy a tax on the value of unimproved land and then use it to pay out a dividend.

This sounds just like something a rich kid from a densely packed uber-upper-class suburb west of Boston would say. Oh wait...

[kernals12]

Henry George over a century ago pointed out the absurdity of profits from land appreciation. The value of land goes up, not because of the owners' investments, but because of sheer luck, a new freeway gets built or oil gets discovered. We should levy a tax on the value of unimproved land and then use it to pay out a dividend.

This sounds just like something a rich kid from a densely packed uber-upper-class suburb west of Boston would say. Oh wait...

Wellesley has a population density of 2,700 people per square mile, that's not densely packed at all. And my parents have no plans to buy me my own home and I have no plans to get an MBA, so paying for housing is going to be a challenge for me.

[cl94]

Henry George over a century ago pointed out the absurdity of profits from land appreciation. The value of land goes up, not because of the owners' investments, but because of sheer luck, a new freeway gets built or oil gets discovered. We should levy a tax on the value of unimproved land and then use it to pay out a dividend.

This sounds just like something a rich kid from a densely packed uber-upper-class suburb west of Boston would say. Oh wait...

Wellesley has a population density of 2,700 people per square mile, that's not densely packed at all. And my parents have no plans to buy me my own home and I have no plans to get an MBA, so paying for housing is going to be a challenge for me.

You're not helping your case here. Wellesley is most definitely an über-upper class suburb west of Boston.

[kernals12]

Henry George over a century ago pointed out the absurdity of profits from land appreciation. The value of land goes up, not because of the owners' investments, but because of sheer luck, a new freeway gets built or oil gets discovered. We should levy a tax on the value of unimproved land and then use it to pay out a dividend.

This sounds just like something a rich kid from a densely packed uber-upper-class suburb west of Boston would say. Oh wait...

Wellesley has a population density of 2,700 people per square mile, that's not densely packed at all. And my parents have no plans to buy me my own home and I have no plans to get an MBA, so paying for housing is going to be a challenge for me.

You're not helping your case here. Wellesley is most definitely an über-upper class suburb west of Boston.

And what does that have to do with anything? This is called the ad hominem fallacy.

[Max Rockatansky]

Henry George over a century ago pointed out the absurdity of profits from land appreciation. The value of land goes up, not because of the owners' investments, but because of sheer luck, a new freeway gets built or oil gets discovered. We should levy a tax on the value of unimproved land and then use it to pay out a dividend.

This sounds just like something a rich kid from a densely packed uber-upper-class suburb west of Boston would say. Oh wait...

Wellesley has a population density of 2,700 people per square mile, that's not densely packed at all. And my parents have no plans to buy me my own home and I have no plans to get an MBA, so paying for housing is going to be a challenge for me.

So, were you running under the expectation that someone would foot the bill for you to live somewhere?  Kind of ironic don't think you think that you blast urban areas for high housing prices but use that as an excuse for yourself?  Why wouldn't you consider moving to one of those affordable markets that you praise so much?

[SectorZ]

Henry George over a century ago pointed out the absurdity of profits from land appreciation. The value of land goes up, not because of the owners' investments, but because of sheer luck, a new freeway gets built or oil gets discovered. We should levy a tax on the value of unimproved land and then use it to pay out a dividend.

This sounds just like something a rich kid from a densely packed uber-upper-class suburb west of Boston would say. Oh wait...

Wellesley has a population density of 2,700 people per square mile, that's not densely packed at all. And my parents have no plans to buy me my own home and I have no plans to get an MBA, so paying for housing is going to be a challenge for me.

You're not helping your case here. Wellesley is most definitely an über-upper class suburb west of Boston.

And what does that have to do with anything? This is called the ad hominem fallacy.

Because you're demanding that those that have a different property situation than your parents should pay more because you feel like it. It is one of the most terrible American character traits we have, demanding that someone pay more for their lifestyle because you don't live said lifestyle (and I've been guilty of it as well, 20 years ago especially so).

That and you think that a town with 2700/square mile is not densely packed. Compared to what in Massachusetts, Chelsea and Somerville?

[kernals12]

Henry George over a century ago pointed out the absurdity of profits from land appreciation. The value of land goes up, not because of the owners' investments, but because of sheer luck, a new freeway gets built or oil gets discovered. We should levy a tax on the value of unimproved land and then use it to pay out a dividend.

This sounds just like something a rich kid from a densely packed uber-upper-class suburb west of Boston would say. Oh wait...

Wellesley has a population density of 2,700 people per square mile, that's not densely packed at all. And my parents have no plans to buy me my own home and I have no plans to get an MBA, so paying for housing is going to be a challenge for me.

You're not helping your case here. Wellesley is most definitely an über-upper class suburb west of Boston.

And what does that have to do with anything? This is called the ad hominem fallacy.

Because you're demanding that those that have a different property situation than your parents should pay more because you feel like it. It is one of the most terrible American character traits we have, demanding that someone pay more for their lifestyle because you don't live said lifestyle (and I've been guilty of it as well, 20 years ago especially so).

That and you think that a town with 2700/square mile is not densely packed. Compared to what in Massachusetts, Chelsea and Somerville?

I see you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. A land value tax with a dividend would hit people in my parents' situation the hardest.

[cl94]

Henry George over a century ago pointed out the absurdity of profits from land appreciation. The value of land goes up, not because of the owners' investments, but because of sheer luck, a new freeway gets built or oil gets discovered. We should levy a tax on the value of unimproved land and then use it to pay out a dividend.

This sounds just like something a rich kid from a densely packed uber-upper-class suburb west of Boston would say. Oh wait...

Wellesley has a population density of 2,700 people per square mile, that's not densely packed at all. And my parents have no plans to buy me my own home and I have no plans to get an MBA, so paying for housing is going to be a challenge for me.

You're not helping your case here. Wellesley is most definitely an über-upper class suburb west of Boston.

And what does that have to do with anything? This is called the ad hominem fallacy.

Because you're demanding that those that have a different property situation than your parents should pay more because you feel like it. It is one of the most terrible American character traits we have, demanding that someone pay more for their lifestyle because you don't live said lifestyle (and I've been guilty of it as well, 20 years ago especially so).

That and you think that a town with 2700/square mile is not densely packed. Compared to what in Massachusetts, Chelsea and Somerville?

I see you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. A land value tax with a dividend would hit people in my parents' situation the hardest.

How is that? Your parents own a house in a developed area. By definition, their land is "improved". It would not hit your parents.

[1995hoo]

Henry George over a century ago pointed out the absurdity of profits from land appreciation. The value of land goes up, not because of the owners' investments, but because of sheer luck, a new freeway gets built or oil gets discovered. We should levy a tax on the value of unimproved land and then use it to pay out a dividend.

This sounds just like something a rich kid from a densely packed uber-upper-class suburb west of Boston would say. Oh wait...

Wellesley has a population density of 2,700 people per square mile, that's not densely packed at all. And my parents have no plans to buy me my own home and I have no plans to get an MBA, so paying for housing is going to be a challenge for me.

You're not helping your case here. Wellesley is most definitely an über-upper class suburb west of Boston.

And what does that have to do with anything? This is called the ad hominem fallacy.

Because you're demanding that those that have a different property situation than your parents should pay more because you feel like it. It is one of the most terrible American character traits we have, demanding that someone pay more for their lifestyle because you don't live said lifestyle (and I've been guilty of it as well, 20 years ago especially so).

That and you think that a town with 2700/square mile is not densely packed. Compared to what in Massachusetts, Chelsea and Somerville?

I see you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. A land value tax with a dividend would hit people in my parents' situation the hardest.

How is that? Your parents own a house in a developed area. By definition, their land is "improved". It would not hit your parents.

Just to make sure it's clear why cl94 is right, compare the boldfaced text, both instances of which are in kernals12's posts.

[kernals12]

Henry George over a century ago pointed out the absurdity of profits from land appreciation. The value of land goes up, not because of the owners' investments, but because of sheer luck, a new freeway gets built or oil gets discovered. We should levy a tax on the value of unimproved land and then use it to pay out a dividend.

This sounds just like something a rich kid from a densely packed uber-upper-class suburb west of Boston would say. Oh wait...

Wellesley has a population density of 2,700 people per square mile, that's not densely packed at all. And my parents have no plans to buy me my own home and I have no plans to get an MBA, so paying for housing is going to be a challenge for me.

You're not helping your case here. Wellesley is most definitely an über-upper class suburb west of Boston.

And what does that have to do with anything? This is called the ad hominem fallacy.

Because you're demanding that those that have a different property situation than your parents should pay more because you feel like it. It is one of the most terrible American character traits we have, demanding that someone pay more for their lifestyle because you don't live said lifestyle (and I've been guilty of it as well, 20 years ago especially so).

That and you think that a town with 2700/square mile is not densely packed. Compared to what in Massachusetts, Chelsea and Somerville?

I see you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. A land value tax with a dividend would hit people in my parents' situation the hardest.

How is that? Your parents own a house in a developed area. By definition, their land is "improved". It would not hit your parents.

According to local property tax records, the land my parents' house sits on is worth about $900,000. A 1% tax on that would be $9,000.

In 2009, land values in the US were about $23 Trillion. There haven't been any more recent estimates, but let's assume it's risen at a constant ratio to GDP. GDP in 2009 was about $14 Trillion. It's now $21 Trillion, implying a land value of $34 Trillion. A 1% tax on that would earn $340 billion. Spread across the adult population of 260 million, that's a dividend of $1,300. My parents would get $2,600 in dividends, against the $9,000 they paid in taxes for a net hit of $6,400.

Let's take a random house in Fall River. Property tax records say that the land it sits on is worth only $84,000. 1% of that is $840. The couple that owns it would get $2,600 in dividends, for a net gain of $1,760.

Now do you get it?

[kernals12]

Henry George over a century ago pointed out the absurdity of profits from land appreciation. The value of land goes up, not because of the owners' investments, but because of sheer luck, a new freeway gets built or oil gets discovered. We should levy a tax on the value of unimproved land and then use it to pay out a dividend.

This sounds just like something a rich kid from a densely packed uber-upper-class suburb west of Boston would say. Oh wait...

Wellesley has a population density of 2,700 people per square mile, that's not densely packed at all. And my parents have no plans to buy me my own home and I have no plans to get an MBA, so paying for housing is going to be a challenge for me.

You're not helping your case here. Wellesley is most definitely an über-upper class suburb west of Boston.

And what does that have to do with anything? This is called the ad hominem fallacy.

Because you're demanding that those that have a different property situation than your parents should pay more because you feel like it. It is one of the most terrible American character traits we have, demanding that someone pay more for their lifestyle because you don't live said lifestyle (and I've been guilty of it as well, 20 years ago especially so).

That and you think that a town with 2700/square mile is not densely packed. Compared to what in Massachusetts, Chelsea and Somerville?

I see you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. A land value tax with a dividend would hit people in my parents' situation the hardest.

How is that? Your parents own a house in a developed area. By definition, their land is "improved". It would not hit your parents.

Just to make sure it's clear why cl94 is right, compare the boldfaced text, both instances of which are in kernals12's posts.

Unimproved land is just a term for the value of land without any structures.

[Rothman]

Henry George over a century ago pointed out the absurdity of profits from land appreciation. The value of land goes up, not because of the owners' investments, but because of sheer luck, a new freeway gets built or oil gets discovered. We should levy a tax on the value of unimproved land and then use it to pay out a dividend.

This sounds just like something a rich kid from a densely packed uber-upper-class suburb west of Boston would say. Oh wait...

Wellesley has a population density of 2,700 people per square mile, that's not densely packed at all. And my parents have no plans to buy me my own home and I have no plans to get an MBA, so paying for housing is going to be a challenge for me.

You're not helping your case here. Wellesley is most definitely an über-upper class suburb west of Boston.

And what does that have to do with anything? This is called the ad hominem fallacy.

Because you're demanding that those that have a different property situation than your parents should pay more because you feel like it. It is one of the most terrible American character traits we have, demanding that someone pay more for their lifestyle because you don't live said lifestyle (and I've been guilty of it as well, 20 years ago especially so).

That and you think that a town with 2700/square mile is not densely packed. Compared to what in Massachusetts, Chelsea and Somerville?

I see you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. A land value tax with a dividend would hit people in my parents' situation the hardest.

How is that? Your parents own a house in a developed area. By definition, their land is "improved". It would not hit your parents.

According to local property tax records, the land my parents' house sits on is worth about $900,000. A 1% tax on that would be $9,000.

In 2009, land values in the US were about $23 Trillion. There haven't been any more recent estimates, but let's assume it's risen at a constant ratio to GDP. GDP in 2009 was about $14 Trillion. It's now $21 Trillion, implying a land value of $34 Trillion. A 1% tax on that would earn $340 billion. Spread across the adult population of 260 million, that's a dividend of $1,300. My parents would get $2,600 in dividends, against the $9,000 they paid in taxes for a net hit of $6,400.

Let's take a random house in Fall River. Property tax records say that the land it sits on is worth only $84,000. 1% of that is $840. The couple that owns it would get $2,600 in dividends, for a net gain of $1,760.

Now do you get it?

I am not sure you understand how taxes work and where tax revenues go after reading that.

[1995hoo]

Henry George over a century ago pointed out the absurdity of profits from land appreciation. The value of land goes up, not because of the owners' investments, but because of sheer luck, a new freeway gets built or oil gets discovered. We should levy a tax on the value of unimproved land and then use it to pay out a dividend.

This sounds just like something a rich kid from a densely packed uber-upper-class suburb west of Boston would say. Oh wait...

Wellesley has a population density of 2,700 people per square mile, that's not densely packed at all. And my parents have no plans to buy me my own home and I have no plans to get an MBA, so paying for housing is going to be a challenge for me.

You're not helping your case here. Wellesley is most definitely an über-upper class suburb west of Boston.

And what does that have to do with anything? This is called the ad hominem fallacy.

Because you're demanding that those that have a different property situation than your parents should pay more because you feel like it. It is one of the most terrible American character traits we have, demanding that someone pay more for their lifestyle because you don't live said lifestyle (and I've been guilty of it as well, 20 years ago especially so).

That and you think that a town with 2700/square mile is not densely packed. Compared to what in Massachusetts, Chelsea and Somerville?

I see you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. A land value tax with a dividend would hit people in my parents' situation the hardest.

How is that? Your parents own a house in a developed area. By definition, their land is "improved". It would not hit your parents.

Just to make sure it's clear why cl94 is right, compare the boldfaced text, both instances of which are in kernals12's posts.

Unimproved land is just a term for the value of land without any structures.

I know very well what it means. But your comment is a non sequitur, as usual for your threads.



BTW, in case you haven't figured it out, there is no reason for you to keep making multiple posts in the same thread within minutes of each other. See the little separator line above this paragraph? You insert that by using the "hr" tag. You can easily create a new reply to someone, then cut-and-paste the text into your previous reply using a separator line to keep it straight. One reason this is a nice thing to do is that it keeps the "Recent Posts" lists on the main forum more orderly and easier for other people to use. (If you're using the full post-editing window, rather than the "Quick Reply" window, it's even easier to consolidate replies–just insert the separator line, scroll down, hit "Insert Quote" for the post to which you want to reply, edit the quotes as appropriate if you know how, and then type your reply.)

[kernals12]

Henry George over a century ago pointed out the absurdity of profits from land appreciation. The value of land goes up, not because of the owners' investments, but because of sheer luck, a new freeway gets built or oil gets discovered. We should levy a tax on the value of unimproved land and then use it to pay out a dividend.

This sounds just like something a rich kid from a densely packed uber-upper-class suburb west of Boston would say. Oh wait...

Wellesley has a population density of 2,700 people per square mile, that's not densely packed at all. And my parents have no plans to buy me my own home and I have no plans to get an MBA, so paying for housing is going to be a challenge for me.

You're not helping your case here. Wellesley is most definitely an über-upper class suburb west of Boston.

And what does that have to do with anything? This is called the ad hominem fallacy.

Because you're demanding that those that have a different property situation than your parents should pay more because you feel like it. It is one of the most terrible American character traits we have, demanding that someone pay more for their lifestyle because you don't live said lifestyle (and I've been guilty of it as well, 20 years ago especially so).

That and you think that a town with 2700/square mile is not densely packed. Compared to what in Massachusetts, Chelsea and Somerville?

I see you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. A land value tax with a dividend would hit people in my parents' situation the hardest.

How is that? Your parents own a house in a developed area. By definition, their land is "improved". It would not hit your parents.

According to local property tax records, the land my parents' house sits on is worth about $900,000. A 1% tax on that would be $9,000.

In 2009, land values in the US were about $23 Trillion. There haven't been any more recent estimates, but let's assume it's risen at a constant ratio to GDP. GDP in 2009 was about $14 Trillion. It's now $21 Trillion, implying a land value of $34 Trillion. A 1% tax on that would earn $340 billion. Spread across the adult population of 260 million, that's a dividend of $1,300. My parents would get $2,600 in dividends, against the $9,000 they paid in taxes for a net hit of $6,400.

Let's take a random house in Fall River. Property tax records say that the land it sits on is worth only $84,000. 1% of that is $840. The couple that owns it would get $2,600 in dividends, for a net gain of $1,760.

Now do you get it?

I am not sure you understand how taxes work and where tax revenues go after reading that.

I do understand, you don't.

[1995hoo]

I do understand, you don't.

"I know you are, but what am I?" 

[hotdogPi]

kernals12's reasoning looks fine to me. I must be missing something. Can someone explain the problem?

[kernals12]

I do understand, you don't.

"I know you are, but what am I?" 

Taxes go wherever elected officials say they go. If they say those taxes get paid out as a flat dividend, then that's what happens. They've been doing it in Alaska since 1982. It's clear to me that you guys just like being assholes.

[1995hoo]

kernals12's reasoning looks fine to me. I must be missing something. Can someone explain the problem?

He wants to "levy a tax on the value of unimproved land and then use it to pay out a dividend." SectorZ said, "This sounds just like something a rich kid from a densely packed uber-upper-class suburb west of Boston would say." kernals12 took umbrage and contended that "[a] land value tax with a dividend would hit people in my parents' situation the hardest." But, as was pointed out, his parents don't live on "unimproved land."

I do understand, you don't.

"I know you are, but what am I?" 

Taxes go wherever elected officials say they go. If they say those taxes get paid out as a flat dividend, then that's what happens. They've been doing it in Alaska since 1982. It's clear to me that you guys just like being assholes.

Dude, if you continue to post complete non sequitur one- or two-sentence responses, then we're going to call you out.

[hotdogPi]

kernals12's reasoning looks fine to me. I must be missing something. Can someone explain the problem?

He wants to "levy a tax on the value of unimproved land and then use it to pay out a dividend." SectorZ said, "This sounds just like something a rich kid from a densely packed uber-upper-class suburb west of Boston would say." kernals12 took umbrage and contended that "[a] land value tax with a dividend would hit people in my parents' situation the hardest." But, as was pointed out, his parents don't live on "unimproved land."

He then explained that the unimproved land cost was the total cost minus the cost of the house.

[Rothman]

I do understand, you don't.

"I know you are, but what am I?" 

Taxes go wherever elected officials say they go. If they say those taxes get paid out as a flat dividend, then that's what happens. They've been doing it in Alaska since 1982. It's clear to me that you guys just like being assholes.

You're the one suggesting a new tax without saying who's levying it, for what purpose, why dividends are even needed, why exactly the tax percentage should be set where you suggest...

You said the tax is necessary because land value changes are arbitrary.  The solution doesn't have a correlation to the problem.

For some reason, you use GDP to come up with a 1% tax percentage, when GDP and land values have only the loosest of connections.

And then, as cl94 pointed out, you don't seem to know yourself if the tax pertains to improved or unimproved land.

That's why I said and still say you have little idea how taxes work.

[kernals12]

I do understand, you don't.

"I know you are, but what am I?" 

Taxes go wherever elected officials say they go. If they say those taxes get paid out as a flat dividend, then that's what happens. They've been doing it in Alaska since 1982. It's clear to me that you guys just like being assholes.

You're the one suggesting a new tax without saying who's levying it, for what purpose, why dividends are even needed, why exactly the tax percentage should be set where you suggest...

You said the tax is necessary because land value changes are arbitrary.  The solution doesn't have a correlation to the problem.

For some reason, you use GDP to come up with a 1% tax percentage, when GDP and land values have only the loosest of connections.

That's why I said and still say you have little idea how taxes work.

And instead of asking me to clarify any of those things, which I would've done happily, you just jumped to the conclusion I was being stupid.

[Alps]

Okay, please explain.
A note to all: I know this is a charged topic. Please all back off each other for a little bit. There's no reason for this to get heated - it's a recreational forum for us. There are much more important things to be angry about, like elections and legislatures.

[kernals12]

Okay, please explain.

Thank you.

This tax is meant to internalize land rents that landowners currently get whenever someone else's actions result in their land value increasing. Property values here in Boston are very high thanks to all the universities and biotech companies creating high paying jobs, but landowners who contributed nothing to that get to enjoy the benefits. The tax would also reduce the cost of land and therefore make housing more affordable.

I suggested a rate of 1% because it's modest, most residential property taxes are about that level. And I suggest a dividend because it will be more popular than just having it go it into the general fund to be used as politicians please.

If you want to hear more about it, you should read Henry George's Progress and Poverty

[SectorZ]

kernals12's reasoning looks fine to me. I must be missing something. Can someone explain the problem?

He wants to "levy a tax on the value of unimproved land and then use it to pay out a dividend." SectorZ said, "This sounds just like something a rich kid from a densely packed uber-upper-class suburb west of Boston would say." kernals12 took umbrage and contended that "[a] land value tax with a dividend would hit people in my parents' situation the hardest." But, as was pointed out, his parents don't live on "unimproved land."

He then explained that the unimproved land cost was the total cost minus the cost of the house.

But that's not what unimproved land is. That's changing the term completely.

I'll let this link explain it better than I could, https://www.easterntitle.com/know-buying-vacant-lotland/

Effectively unimproved more or less means vacant. Meaning, no property structures on it. Kerny has turned it into "muh grass around my mansion". I'm not down with people changing the definitions of terms to fit an argument.