Property tax is a land value tax. You literally pay a percentage of some notional value of your property every year, largely based on how you use it. The fact you don't recognize that is a good shibboleth for "never have engaged with the real world."
A portion of a property tax is a land value tax, but 1) it’s only one portion of it and 2) it’s the opposite of the portion that you just described.
It’s very specifically not based on how you use the land. And that’s literally the core fact of the system. The two calculations yield entirely different incentives. It’s clear you misunderstood it. I recommend reading the book itself as it will be clearer than you’ve apparently had it explained.
>It’s very specifically not based on how you use the land.
Sorry but you are wrong. Farmers and homeowners pay less than investors. If you build expensive stuff on the property (put another way, if you USE it to do something expensive) you generally pay more.
Again, I don't need to read a whole book, much less one based on pure idealism and with no thought given to real economic data and real human nature, to know that it is generally wrong. I don't need to read the whole book here any more than I need to read the whole bible to doubt it. You need to learn about the real world and stop assuming you know better than everyone just because you read an old book. Sometimes a book review is actually enough to get the gist. I even got reviews from people who thought highly of the book, and I was unconvinced.
So, am I to understand that prime beach real estate is to be taxed the same as a plot in a desert or swamp? There is clearly a lot of trouble with taxing land, because an inherent part of its value is what you can do with it. People pay premium for land that is useful and desireable. The structures placed on land and the values thereof are proportional to this desirability and economic utility.
Furthermore, it might be necessary to use land for farming or warehouses when it is more profitably used for residential structures. A free market might eventually sort out higher food prices that can cover the taxes, but I think we can all agree that it's better to not arbitrarily increase taxes on a necessity like food.
> So, am I to understand that prime beach real estate is to be taxed the same as a plot in a desert or swamp?
Why would that be the case? A beachfront plot would likely have a higher value than a plot in a desert or swamp, so the tax levied on the beachfront plot’s value would, of course, be higher. It’s a tax on the land’s value, not a tax on the size of the plot.
The value of land is largely subjective. It is based on demand, among other things. If the government assigns arbitrarily high or low value to land based on hypothetical worlds where the land could be used for high rises, factories, or whatever as opposed to what economics has proven is the best actual use of the land and its best estimated price, that is just a terrible version of the same thing we have now.
Assessors observe market activity. The 'purchase price' when you buy land is based on the highest and best potential use of land. The "Land Value Tax" merely appropriates this observed value for public expense (and potential dividend distribution).
The fact that you compared 'prime real estate' to swampland or desert demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of ad valorem taxation and land rent generally. While the rate should be the same (ideally as close to 100% as we can get without causing issues) the actual -value- would be dramatically different.
Under your hypothetical question, the desert and/or swampland could very well have 0 rental value, which means the tax would collect 0 from these locations. 100% of $0 = 0.
By analogy: “I don’t need to read On The Origin of Species because I’m already familiar with the idea that a singular designer made all of life on earth and I don’t believe it! I already know that actually three intelligent designers made everything on earth. No sense in reading Darwin, who is an idiot for believing there’s only one intelligent designer!”
Like it is a satirical level of misunderstanding. To clarify, in case you’ve also listened to a podcast or whatever: Darwin doesn’t argue there’s one designer. George doesn’t argue for property tax.
There’s nowhere for the conversation to go if you think otherwise and are digging in your heels on it, so I’ll just reassure you that you’re exhibiting satirical levels of misunderstanding and frankly shocking foolishness to not be reacting to point blank demonstrations of your wrongness.
No, this is like saying I'm not going to read "Origin of Species" because it is dated and redundant. You don't have to disagree with something to know it's not worth your time.
>George doesn’t argue for property tax.
I don't think this is correct. But hey, you can redefine words all you want. A tax on land versus a tax on property, it's all just another tax.
>Like it is a satirical level of misunderstanding.
It's not satirical or a misunderstanding on my end as far as I'm concerned. I don't care to continue this discussion either. No matter what I'll say you'll demand I read the book, which I'm not going to do. When I compare it to anything you'll accuse me of misunderstanding something so basic as a tax. No thanks, take it up with someone who cares.
Well, I know you don't think that's correct, but that's because you're wrong. You haven't read George's argument and I have, so we're just not on equal footing here.
> A tax on land versus a tax on property, it's all just another tax.
An income tax is also a property tax is also a land tax is also a capital gains tax, yes? This is one way in which you're wrong.
And no, if you didn't exhibit both a ridiculous misunderstanding and an astounding level of confidence in your ignorance, I wouldn't implore you to read the book. You're obviously welcome to carry your ignorance with pride though, so have a good week!
