Land Value Taxes are what tax the scarce land, not property taxes. That's the article's point: moving away from property taxes towards LVTs creates the incentive to move away from underdevelopment.

There is some merit to the idea but it shouldn’t be punitive but must possess an incentive for it to be developed.

Afterall, possession of a limited resource shouldn’t create a disadvantage to the owner of said possession. That makes no logical sense wrt property and ownership rights.

The limited nature of land is precisely why possession should be costly. Efficient use of land will produce an economic surplus adequate to pay a reasonable land tax and then some. But if someone squanders their land and insists on letting it sit fallow, so to speak, they will pay for the privilege. If it is sufficiently important to the land owner that the land be unproductive, they will be happy to pay the price in the form of the land tax; otherwise, they will sell the land to someone who can put the land to better use.

There is nothing natural about land ownership. The government creates the artificial construct of land as property to avoid the tragedy of the commons, where no one has an incentive to invest in making land productive--for example, by building a home, factory, or farm. A land tax prevents a land owner from squandering the privileges of land ownership.

My point was only for primary homes. I agree that land left undeveloped must be put to use but with incentive, not as punishment.

"possession of a limited resource shouldn’t create a disadvantage to the owner of said possession"

Disadvantage from what baseline? Possession of a limited resource always creates an advantage to start with. If this is not compensated for with a tax, then aren't people going to compete away the value that would have been taxed? In which case it will be lost to society.

Not if it’s a primary home.

There is a tax at source. There is a tax at transfer/inheritance.

If it’s put to use, there is a tax at consumption. The house always wins. The govt always collects tax.

I disagree with the notion that redistribution should be coercion or punitive. A land tax for undeveloped land is punitive. Property and ownership is constitutionally protected. People shouldn’t be punished for being productive and wealthy.

Undeveloped land is not produced, but it is scarce and has value that can be degraded. Hence, a tax on it is not punishing the productive, but guarding against waste.

So are precious metals and top soil and fossil fuels. They are taxed as ad valorem.

Here is a thought experiment:

No one is taxed again and again every year after they buy ..say(and this is hypothetical)..a pace maker that is made with a very rare and precious metal that is a limited resource.

Of course, once the metal is depleted then others can’t avail it to make new pace makers that would help others live. Does it mean that the original recipients of a life saving device must be taxed every year as their particular illness start affecting new patients.

Think of that chronic illness as lack of access to property. And the pacemaker as the home. And the precious metal used to make the pace maker as the limited resource or commodity that is land.

Early adopters have an advantage. There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with it.

What is truly wrong is the punitive financial burden brought about by the mere possession of said asset. It’s incredibly perverse and unfair.

It can be argued that even a nominal property tax is unfair unless it is ploughed back as essential services. Using it for public education is for the greater good and is a mark of a egalitarian society. To use it to funnel money into unfunded pension liabilities of public sector employees under the guidance of unions is unacceptable. To claim it as a right with entitlement is borderline thuggery.

> Early adopters have an advantage. There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with it.

Given the inheritance of land, I think quite a lot of people would argue that there is something unfair about having an advantageous position simply because of your ancestors.

Pensions are deferred pay. It is wage theft - thuggery - to promise to pay people X now and Y later then renege on the Y later.

"Given the inheritance of land, I think quite a lot of people would argue that there is something unfair about having an advantageous position simply because of your ancestors."

It seems like you very frequently hear the opposite opinion, that it is grievously unfair to not have an advantageous position that you should have inherited because your ancestors' land was taken away.

So I don't think that there is any consensus.

> grievously unfair to not have an advantageous position that you should have inherited because your ancestors' land was taken away

I can't parse all the double negatives in this.

I wouldn’t. I think children are property too and parents genes are inherited too.

I suspect that once we start designer babies, they would become property too.

Pensions don’t work anymore. It’s an outdated idea. Just like minimum wage, it’s forced penury for the promise of future wealth. This has only enabled unions and the like to exploit everyone including workers.

> children are property too

The children, and indeed everyone else, would probably disagree with you.

> Pensions don’t work anymore. It’s an outdated idea.

So, what of the period from the end of the useful working life until death? Penury?

https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-pension-crisis-davis-... : this is an example of how pensions and unfunded pension liabilities are bankrupting California

At the end of the day, it’s speculation. Instead of spitting on the face of millennials and tech and Silicon Valley, they ought to look at unions and the burden of unfunded pension liabilities.

For most public sector employees, the last salary you draw is your pension for life. Law enforcement and fire fighters retire at 50 and are free to work after retirement. Until a few years ago, unclaimed leave could be cashed in..a caltrans driver took home 400+k from leave accumulated over 35 years. Others take the last couple of years off but remain unemployed getting an average of 4-5% hike annually which becomes part of their pension. This isn’t deferred pay. It’s pension spiking. It comes from unfunded liabilities. Which would put every Californian in debt for years to come and will probably never go away until pension schemes are over hauled.

Maybe it’s time for change. Maybe a UBI. Pensions and unfunded liabilities that include hacks like pension spiking, union negotiating, political shennanigans have made it a corrupt system. Even today, unions are part of political lobbying.

I am thinking UBI of some sort. I would imagine a good way to test UBI would be for those in retirement. By abolishing pension schemes. No pension, higher pay during the working years. It’s fairer to all.

  No one is taxed again and again every
  year after they buy ..say(and this is
  hypothetical)..a pace maker

A pacemaker doesn't need weekly trash pickups forever.

So send a bill for trash pickup the same way a bill is sent for water/sewer usage.

People should not have to pay tax on their primary residence. I'm fine with taxes on every subsequent property and taxes on rental units on the same property but you should not have to pay a tax for owning your own residence.

As a rational asshole, I love the idea of optional billing for trash pickup, because I can save money by dumping my trash in the nearby national park under cover of darkness.

My neighbours don't feel the same way, so we have mandatory trash pickup, a.k.a. a tax.

I pay for my trash pickup, it's not included in my property tax.

I pay to have my trash picked. $110.

Sounds like what we need is property tax that charges different rates based on the use of the land: if it's a high-density condo, it should be cheap (to encourage denser living), if it's a detached single-family home, it should be a little more, if it's a parking lot, it should be extremely high (to discourage wasting land on parking lots), etc.

People should also be taxed on consumption. And for transactions(like bequeathing and inheritance) Not wealth.

Wealth must be encouraged to share using incentives and not coercion. There is still value in freedom to make choices about property. Freedom is the corner stone of a free society. Individual freedom.

Agree.

Lots that provide parking spots are usually required by law

Don't get me wrong, I'm in agreement that this is a bad use of limited space. But the cause of this bad use is "mandated by law", not "accidentally incentivized by a policy". Tweaking the policy changes nothing if the requirement remains

I think you missed the "primary residence" part of the parent, a parking lot would be taxed, a home you own that you rent would be traced, but your primary residence that does nothing but provide you shelter would not be taxed.