> The farmland’s 40$/year in taxes isn’t pushing anyone to sell

I don't think that's an easy assumption to make. Cost of living, average income, and average plot size are very different in rural areas. I don't know Idaho so I can't speak to land value there, but I can say farmable land in rural Alabama goes for between $1k and $6k per acre depending on the land. If you really want to farm it for anything more than a homestead, 40+ acres is a minimum IMO. On the high end that works out to $480/year, but with an average income in the area closer to $25k/year that number isn't insignificant when its a tax just for the right to continue to own land I already bought. Add to that the extreme challenge of even breaking even in farming today, I'd be impressed if anyone farming 40 acres in rural Alabama could reliably turn $25k in profit each year.

Related to that while we're at it, what is the government's justification for taxing the value of land I own outright? Are we classifying land and property ownership as a privilege rather than a right? And in a rural area where land isn't changing hands as frequently and farmland can often sit for sale for months or years, how does the government accurately assess value? In my own experience land value in rural areas is only really adjusted when new structures are built or a specific parcel changes hands, but maybe that is handled differently elsewhere.

For land assessment, many countries or municipalities assess it regularly. In my country (New Zealand), most city councils re-assess land value and improvements value every three years (and charge council rates based on them).

Its probably more of a rural issue, but assessing value can be difficult when there aren't enough recent comps since the last major economic shift.

I live on around 80 acres (30 hectares?). Our land is a bit unique in the area, and in general there hasn't been a single piece of land sold near us since before the pandemic and all the economic change that came with it. I don't know how the county could possibly know what our land is worth until something similar sells on the open market again.

> what is the government's justification for taxing the value of land I own outright?

Well, where I live (which is not in the USA) value-based land taxes go to the municipality and the school board. They pay for municipal services I benefit from: fire, police, EMTs, road maintenance, waste collection and processing, recreational facilities like a park, a library, and a swimming pool. Also schools, but that gets more complicated since some funding for education also comes from a higher level of government which collects income taxes.

Now mind, I live of 25 ha of swampland. But I get excellent value for my land-value-based land taxes.

> what is the government's justification for taxing the value of land I own outright?

In the 1970's a group of people decided to setup a micro nation on a small unclaimed island. A nearby country Tonga seeing they where not protected by another state invaded, so ended the micro nation.

Ultimately it's the US governments providing a military and police force that causes a piece of paper to have any impact on who controls a piece of land. Such services require payment. Though we charge for local services ie schools, EMS based with property taxes and protection FBI/Army based on people (income tax). Historically this favors land owners, but we could swap in the future.

I'm not sure that it favors the land owners. Most of us presumably value our life over our worldly possessions.

By favor I simply mean the property tax level required to support a trillion dollar defense + VA + courts + police etc budget is larger than the current property tax rate. And without that type of spending owning the deed to some property would be pointless.

Obviously we could lower defense spending but that's a separate question than simply the justification for taxes.

So would you expect this new property tax to be a federal tax, as opposed to most today that are used to fund local governments?

Thanks for that - fascinating story!

http://www.queenoftheisles.com/HTML/Republic%20of%20Minerva....

I just worry if there are valuable trees on a piece of land. It would be unfortunate for someone to own, say, 10 acres of land with redwoods on them. If the wood is valued at a ton of money, that would encourage them to chop it down.

Yes - I think any such system should at least be restricted to urban areas (I’m not sure I’ve seen it proposed otherwise) and you’d need some careful work to have credits for functional ecosystems without having people try to scam it by claiming that the koi pond & tree on their mini golf course makes it a wildlife habit after a duck is spotted there.

I'm not sure why a tree would not be considered a functional ecosystem. Perhaps giving incentives to people growing even individual trees is the thing to do. Otherwise people without trees are just freeloading of someone else's property.

That’s why I said care. A tree as part of a larger garden in an area where insects and animals can reach it probably is good, but a palm tree in a sterile concrete swimming pool zone is unlikely to help and putting in a ton of invasive plants could actually be a problem. Ideally the incentives could be set based on support for native flora and fauna to discourage attempts to game it. If it’s linked to a tax cut, you’ll see every possible bad faith interpretation tried at least once.

> There’s no need to limit land value taxes based on density as that’s what’s giving land its value.

That can't be the case; density is an amenity and is, by definition, not part of the value of the land.

The point of land value tax is to charge the same taxes on an empty lot as to a building close by on the same sized lot. Under regular property taxes a speculator might buy a building, tear it down, and sit on the vacant lot for years, as a vacant lot is worth less and so lowers their taxes. With a land value tax they pay the same money either way, which may be higher overall - the general expectation is denser cities would set the tax higher to encourage land to be put to more productive usage - taller buildings, ground floor retail to go with the apartments or office space, etc.

Perhaps this isn't the value of the land as you would like to define it, but rather a way for local government to encourage land be put to more productive usage for everyone who lives or works nearby - without dictating exactly what that usage might be.

The problem with your comment is that you're appealing to a phrase, "land value tax", that isn't original to you. The definition you want to give to it is not compatible with the definition that everyone else uses. (And indeed, isn't even connected to the concept of "land value", making it unclear why you'd want to use those words.)

This allows you to avoid the logical inconsistency in what counts as land value that most proponents commit, at the minor cost that nothing you say has any meaning. What happens when I try to respond to your new point of view and you reply that, actually, you mean something different by "money" than what is normally understood?

What would you think if you voted to establish a "land value tax" and the tax that was put in place comported with the ordinary definition, instead of yours?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Its totally clear what 'land value tax' is.

Land value tax already has a specific meaning as a class of tax systems. If it's poorly named from your point of view, I'm sorry - but I had nothing to do with the naming.

> Land value tax already has a specific meaning as a class of tax systems.

Yes, that's my point. Your use is incompatible with the existing use. You are not responsible for the conventional use of the phrase "land value tax", but you certainly are responsible for presenting your own ideas under the same name and acting confused when people assume you're using the ordinary sense of the phrase.

You are assuming that all real estate owners are paying taxes.

Also, in blighted areas buying improved land may actually be discouraged by LVT because of demolition costs. Thus vacant land should be more valuable than improved land. Can you resolve the paradox?

> Can you resolve the paradox?

What's the paradox?

Two identical pieces of land, both pay the same in taxes, one requires more work to improve it (as it needs a tear down first). So that piece of land will sell for a lower price than its neighbor.

That seems like a strange definition to me. It's clear that people are willing to pay higher prices for land with amenities nearby, so by definition the value of the land is increased.

I think wires are getting crossed here on the "useful" or intrinsic value of land versus the market value. The GP was arguing that the land value is separate from outside considerations like amenities.

People argue this over things like gold as well. IMO at the end of the day its impossible to tease apart anything other than the total market value, and I think that's where you are at as well sticking to the land's total market value.

But presumably at least some of the land owners are already paying more through paying for the presumably private amenities. Hence the fairness argument falls at least partially.

Taxation is not about fairness, it's about raising revenue for the rather discretionary spending of the government.

95+% of the value of land in LA is because it's in LA not because it's on the coast. Just compare land costs vs various properties ~1 mile from the ocean in Florida or Texas far from cities.

Meanwhile you can an awesome spot in central WV with a nice stream an a scenic waterfall perfect view for a family home. But it's not worth much because it's far from restaurants, office paying six figures etc.