Re:The paradox of soil: Land has returned as a constraint on...
by roymurdock on Thursday September 03, 2015 @04:28PM
(#10167342)
Again, both of these classical economists are assuming perfect markets and non-sticky rent. In a perfectly rational world where prices are constantly updated as the landlord and tenant are perfectly rational beings who evaluate how much the land is worth to them on a minute-by-minute basis, then yes this theory holds.
In a world where there are significant search and movement frictions, where subsidized housing exists, where landlords and their tenants have relationships beyond renter/rentee, where a home/building has value beyond its ability to be slept in, these theories will not hold.
My hypothesis is that if an LVT was levied in SF, rent would go up by at least 50% of the value of the LVT as a direct effect of the tax.
"A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground."
– Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
"A tax on rent would affect rent only; it would fall wholly on landlords, and could not be shifted to any class of consumers. The landlord could not raise his rent, because he would leave unaltered the difference between the produce obtained from the least productive land in cultivation, and that obtained from land of every quality."
– David Ricardo, On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation