Remix.run Logo
▲ Sharlin 3 hours ago

It’s exactly the correct idea. If the value of your land rises as a positive externality, it only makes sense that you contribute some of that back to the society that effected the rise in the first place.

▲bigstrat2003 2 hours ago | parent [-]

No it doesn't. You haven't realized any gains, therefore it's not just to tax you on that.

▲skew-aberration 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Vast majority are realizing their gains as rent. A land tax would just be taxing those gains before they can be recycled into the real-estate market. Perfectly just in that case.

If you're talking about an individual not using the land commercially - well theoretically the tax burden lowers the sale price. You don't pay both. At 100% land tax, the sale price would be zero. You pay only as you use the land. That also seems just to me.

▲cjbgkagh 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well I have news for you… governments are coming for unrealized gains, they will not care if the money is on hand, they’ll fire sell your property if you don’t get a loan to pay the taxes. It’s a mathematical inevitability. And by that I mean governments are going broke and will try to find ever more creative ways to raise money, and unrealized gains, tax normalization, is one of the bigger leavers.