Excellent analysis Sam. I think it's important for many to remember that land values do not need to be perfect for LVT to outperform existing tax systems.
I would also suggest exploring Harberger taxation for land value assessments, like those that I mentioned for valuing IP, where owners self-assess the value of their property: https://www.lianeon.org/p/launching-the-ideas-gold-rush
The elephant here is the vast capital reserves that BlackRock etc have to simply buy every property that comes up for auction. They can wait out the pain of rising tax to force a land owner to revalue and then buy the property.
The second is that humankind do have an inalienable right to their share of land on this finite planet. To say otherwise means the wealthy are entitled to simply push the poor off a cliff and that is not a society I want to live in.
Having a system that basically promotes or even condones the destruction of serviceable structures will negate any social benefit by wasting resources in a resource constrained world. It would simply mean that BlackRock would buy every property and then demolish each house to enrich their vertically integrated construction industry and claim market forces made them do it, and they would be right in saying so and would support and fund your bill.
Take some portion of surface area (10-100%) of the country/state/village and divide it by the population and this area (or some fixed m2 per capita that starts to fall if the population exceeds the carrying capacity of the area) is the share of land you may own tax free to use as you will. This land could be taxed at a inflation linked rate. Any extra land could be sold on auction.
Further any land that is not privately owned is held in a citizens wealth fund and the natural resources from it go to the Adult Resident Citizens Dividend (ARCD) with any other natural income as the bounty or nature, sort of like an UNCONDITIONAL Basic Income but with another name that reflects who and why you should get it and not a UNIVERSAL Basic Income that is just a name for a social credit score slave yoke.
But notice that if a company like BlackRock were to buy up every property, nobody else would need to pay taxes! And to recoup their losses, they would have to rent the land out to people at market rate. That doesn't seem like such a terrible outcome.
A citizens dividend is a common part of Georgist policy, so I think that fits quite well here.
Excellent analysis Sam. I think it's important for many to remember that land values do not need to be perfect for LVT to outperform existing tax systems.
I would also suggest exploring Harberger taxation for land value assessments, like those that I mentioned for valuing IP, where owners self-assess the value of their property: https://www.lianeon.org/p/launching-the-ideas-gold-rush
The elephant here is the vast capital reserves that BlackRock etc have to simply buy every property that comes up for auction. They can wait out the pain of rising tax to force a land owner to revalue and then buy the property.
The second is that humankind do have an inalienable right to their share of land on this finite planet. To say otherwise means the wealthy are entitled to simply push the poor off a cliff and that is not a society I want to live in.
Having a system that basically promotes or even condones the destruction of serviceable structures will negate any social benefit by wasting resources in a resource constrained world. It would simply mean that BlackRock would buy every property and then demolish each house to enrich their vertically integrated construction industry and claim market forces made them do it, and they would be right in saying so and would support and fund your bill.
Take some portion of surface area (10-100%) of the country/state/village and divide it by the population and this area (or some fixed m2 per capita that starts to fall if the population exceeds the carrying capacity of the area) is the share of land you may own tax free to use as you will. This land could be taxed at a inflation linked rate. Any extra land could be sold on auction.
Further any land that is not privately owned is held in a citizens wealth fund and the natural resources from it go to the Adult Resident Citizens Dividend (ARCD) with any other natural income as the bounty or nature, sort of like an UNCONDITIONAL Basic Income but with another name that reflects who and why you should get it and not a UNIVERSAL Basic Income that is just a name for a social credit score slave yoke.
But notice that if a company like BlackRock were to buy up every property, nobody else would need to pay taxes! And to recoup their losses, they would have to rent the land out to people at market rate. That doesn't seem like such a terrible outcome.
A citizens dividend is a common part of Georgist policy, so I think that fits quite well here.
Yeah, if you have a billion dollars you can afford to squat and not sell at a loss or discount the rent.
Yes, the Georgist label gets suggested to me now and then but I have not read more than the wikipedia page about him.