Re: increase in value = increase in wealth?

On Mar 4, 1:06 pm, h...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:03:03 -0800 (PST), "jwpgarr...@xxxxxxxxx"

<jwpgarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The solution to this problem is to make the beneficiary of increasing
land values be the Government by levying a tax on land.  This kills
many birds with only one simple stone.  First off, it pays for public
spending (which is currently 18.5% of the GDP) without the need to tax
wealth producing activies (sales taxes, income taxes, etc).  Because
taxing land is taxing the economic rent of land (the excess needed to
put land into production), it will not distort production and cause
deadweight losses.  Then it is progressive (the very rich own the
highest value land), it contains urban sprawl (caused by land
speculation which becomes impossible under a 100% Land Value Tax
regime), it forces owners to put land into its highest productive use
or sell it to others who will, and the LVT is transparent, making it
difficult to bribe, hide, and cheat on the LVT.

interesting thought, but two problems come to mind:  the rich really
won't pay more, they will only shift the tax burden to their tenants
increasing homelessness, and secondly you will put farmers out of
business unless you have agricultural exemptions.  And if you have any
kinds of exemptions you will have to have all kinds of exemptions and
if you have exemptions the wealthy will find ways to not pay anything.

Hal

How does one shift the burden of the LVT to tenants when the supply of
land is completely inelastic? Landowners will eat the tax.

The LVT is not a taxed based on acreage but on land VALUES. When you
compare the land values of urban areas vs rural areas, urban areas
have higher values b/c they are in greater demand. If anything,
farmers would benefit more from the LVT than current taxes.
.

Relevant Pages