Re: Land tax (Re: better tax code: no income tax, head tax (&| ppty t)

On Mar 8, 3:36 am, ro...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 12:05:28 -0800 (PST), Liesander

<lysan...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 4, 9:25 pm, "Andy F." <never.m...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"RogerDodger" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message


What the poster is missing is that the LVT is a dual tax. It taxes the
owner and the buyer.

You are just stupid. It taxes the owner, and thus reduces cost to the
buyer.


Now you are just being silly. The buyer knows he will have to pay the
tax because he owns it. This affects his demand curve. Saying it does
not affect the buyer says that people do not factor in taxes when they
buy something which is silly. Furthermore, the only way to reduce
prices if as you argue land is perfectly inelastic because people will
sell all land at any price and you can not make more land is to
decrease demand. By your argument that land can not be created or
destroyed, then by your wrong definition supply can not increase all
land in the world exist. So the tax does not affect the supply of
land.

Essentially if done right, under monopolistic competition analysis
then you have demand decreasing, buyers factor taxes that must be paid
into the buying price. Just as when you buy a car you factor in how
much you have to pay to register the car and keep it registered into
the price. The road taxes in most US states are similar to land taxes
from a buyer's viewpoint because they both tax ownership of the asset.
If you own the land you must pay the tax each year, just as you have
to pay registration every year. This increases the total cost to the
buyer above price and therefore they are buy less at the same
potential prices. Also marginal cost goes up.


It decreases demand and increases supply.

The supply of land is fixed.


Then how does price drop to make land more affordable to buyers if
supply can not increase? You have caught yourself in a fallacy. Demand
is unaffected but supply can not be affected yet price drops. How is
this? Magic?

It is
the equivalent of taxing a maker of candy for the amount of candy in
stock at a certain time and the buyer for buying the candy.

Garbage. No one is a maker of land. You are stupid and dishonest.

ROy is a little dense to see the analogy here. LVT is a tax on
ownership. This is equivalent to telling the candy maker I will tax
you for every piece of candy you hold. However, with LVT the buyer
will be the owner and must assume the tax. Therefore the buyer is
being taxed for buying the good. The same happens in this example. The
manufacture is taxed for holding and the buyer is taxed for buying.


It's possibe because the IRS allows it. Under the current system, the
government has little incentive to insist on accurate appraisals.

They would have even more incentive to have inaccurately high
appraisals under a land tax.

No, that is a lie. An inaccurately high appraisal would result in no
one paying the tax, because no one would want to use the land for that
price.


Which means as I argued before the tax goes unpaid and suddenly the
state owns the land! Socialism at its finest.


I know from personal experience tax
assessors often ASSES THE VALUE ABOVE THE PRICE PAID FOR THE LAND.

Correct. Like, if the price was paid 40 years before....

Try one week early. I met with my county appraisal board ONE WEEK
after the sale. They rejected the sale price as the tax value and used
some comparables based on inaccurate information. I had to have an
assessor come out and verify the garage apartment DID NOT exist as it
was stated on tax roles.


In the mid 1990's I was an undergraduate
and had to represent my father at a tax hearing due to him being in
the hospital. The assessor took the argument that the price paid for
the house just 1 month ago should be the tax value. The last 2 times I
have made purchases the assessor did not care what the market price
was and taxed the value at higher than what I had just paid for the
land.

Because property taxes do not just tax the value of land, but
improvements, too.


This has nothing to do with it. It had everything to do with them
rejecting market price for some other method they essentially made up
based on inaccurate information of the property. The worst thing is I
live in a small county and they are still heavily understaffed because
funds are not available for assessors therefore the estimates are
often very wrong.



Nonsense. Properties are sold at market prices.It's only the split between
land and improvements which is misreported.

This is not how assessors do this.

You don't know anything about it, stupid.

They use comparables. What you are
missing is how do you determine the market price of something not
sold?

<yawn> Look at the stickers on the windows of cars at a car dealer.


You miss the point. This is like to trying to asses the value of a
1962 corvette when you find not a 1962 corvette for sale anywhere in a
100 mile radius. Sticker prices and listed prices are not sale prices
either. People ask what they want. That doesn't mean they sell at that
price.

This is often a question that arises when economist consult the
Department of Defense. Transfer pricing economist often see this issue
too. It is the same for land. You paid $X for the land in 1990 what
would be it worth if you sold it today is what you need for the tax
bill. What if no raw land is still for sell in your neighborhood?

Two alternatives:

1. Apply the established accurate assessment methodology.


That does not exist.



This is hard
enough with raw land + improvements. It is even harder with raw land
because you have to find comparable raw land or crunch complex supply
and demand models, assuming you have the right data.

False. Any competent appraiser will tell you that it is EASIER to
value raw land than improved land.


Sure they would. Why? Because they apply a simple inaccurate formula
that has no basis in reality.

The cost effectiveness of this tax is very bad.

It is known to be the most cost effective of all commonly used taxes.


Sure it is. Put up a study quit asserting.

It is highly costly to administer.

It is cheap to administer.


High Preist Roy has spoken therefore it is.


It can benefit employers due to SS matching. For the vast majority of
people it is EXTREMELY hard to hide income

A bald lie. Most people DO hide income that the tax code says they
should be paying tax on.


How does someone who works 40 hours a week and only has an IRA hide
income? You can not. The majority of people can not hide income. Only
the self employed can. The rest of the people banks, brokerages, or
employers are required to report your income to the IRS and they have
no incentive not to report it and all kinds of incentives to report
your income. It is really only the self employed who can hide income.

and hard to argue what the
right tax level is. It is EXTREMELY easy to spend real resources
arguing over what the tax roll value of land is and it ties up court
time.

Only because the landowners (who own the politicians) have designed
the system to be inaccurate.


Oh here we go conspiracy time. Nice try David Eicke. Bullshitometer
beeping really fast.

If you have a property tax where you live go to the assessment
office on the day they hear appeals. You will get some idea of what I
am talking about.

As usual, you are talking about a bad system that does not resemble
the system you are arguing against.


No it is the reality of what happens with LVT. You are talking about
the current system with only taking out the tax on improvements. It
does not change the bad, inaccurate, and costly valuation process.

What is the low-cost and accurate value assessment method of the
Georgists that today's NYC property tax assessors are missing?

Comparable sales.

Comparable sales are used by tax assessors in most states. They are
highly inaccurate and costly.

That is a bald lie.


What that comparable sales are used in most states in the US. Look at
the data. You are wrong.
Maybe that they are highly inaccurate and costly. Again look at the
data.

They have lengthy appeal process and
cost a boat load to implement.

Lie.


Roy has never had a property tax hearing.


My county takes extreme liberties with
even reporting square footage properly.

Lie.


Roy does not even know what state I live in or what County I am in but
he knows I am lying. Perhaps Roy can enlighten me on the proceedure of
my county and how the county appraisal district does business. He is
claiming he knows my county so tell me how does the tax work in my
county. Who is the district clerk? What is the policy of the apprasial
district? He knows none of this but he knows I am lying.

It took a month of fighting to
have them remove the garage apartment that did not exist and to get
the square footage right. It took longer for them to correct the
acreage of the raw land. That is costly. Far fewer disputes arise from
income taxes.

Lie.


Now Roy knows how long it took me to dispute my property taxes to get
the basic measurements accurate and how long it took for me to do my
income taxes the last 3 years and resolve the amounts.

The person who gathers the data for income taxes,
employers, banks, brokerage firms, etc. have no interest in raising
your tax bill above what it should be those who pick comparable sales
and record what the dimensions of your land is have every incentive to
make your tax bill as big as possible.

Lie.


Take your meds Roy. \
.

Loading