> The argument is that good business spots are a limited community resource that it makes sense to tax, like radio spectrum.
I'm not sure I follow the reasoning here. How does the existence of economic scarcity imply that it makes sense to tax anything?
> If you can make good use of the space you're taking up, go ahead, but you should compete fairly with other uses of the space.
But that's already inherent in the nature of scarcity -- the more demand there is for a scarce resource, the higher the price is. So businesses making use of high-value prime real estate are already paying more for it. The law of supply and demand already does what you are proposing. How does paying additional fees to a separate institution with its own perverse incentives add anything to the equation?
> the largely automated facility wasn’t the best use for a prominent Main Street site
This was the personal opinion of a local bureaucrat who thought his personal opinion should be policy. That's why the company is suing.
> I'm not sure I follow the reasoning here. How does the existence of economic scarcity imply that it makes sense to tax anything?
Land in the right place is not merely economically scarce, it's economic land.
> But that's already inherent in the nature of scarcity -- the more demand there is for a scarce resource, the higher the price is. So businesses making use of high-value prime real estate are already paying more for it. The law of supply and demand already does what you are proposing.
Supply and demand doesn't work for land because there's no new supply. No matter how much the price goes up, people aren't going to make more.
> Land in the right place is not merely economically scarce, it's economic land
I don't see how there's anything particularly special about land that warrants construing it as something fundamentally different from any other scarce resource.
> Supply and demand doesn't work for land because there's no new supply.
I'm not sure that I agree that there is no new supply of land in an economic sense -- developments that increase the productivity of land use are functionally equivalent to those that increase the physical supply -- but regardless, the law of supply and demand operates the same whether the supply on the market is new or old.
“I don't see how there's anything particularly special about land that warrants construing it as something fundamentally different from any other scarce resource.”
I’ve overheard enough conversations between high net worth individuals to say there’s absolutely unique qualities about land as an asset class or they wouldn’t hold so much of it.
read some solid reasons for land focused tax regimes long ago but couldn’t remember deets on why they were compelling so googled helped me remember …
‘Immobility: Land doesn’t move, making it a stable tax base. (Important for local services like deciding whether a town can afford the new school(s) or a road).
Scarcity: No more land is being created, so taxing it efficiently is crucial. (Kind of like capital itself)
Non-distortionary: Taxing unimproved land doesn’t distort transactions.
Local Funding: LVT may be an effective way to fund local government since land cannot be moved to avoid taxes’ (1)
(1) which BTW is the main reason often given why ordinary folks have to pay higher payroll taxes vs capital gains the wealthier brackets ‘pay’ because you know capital will just up and move somewhere else if we ask too much of them.
Well just tax the land, and if the capital holders want to move all their wealth out of the community, fine, but good luck extracting wealth from a local community without owning any land near it.
So yeah. Tax the damn land already. Especially to fund local government and services, which you kinda need to have a functioning society.
I clicked through because I’ve wondered often why there’s a dozen of these new washes in my community with ten more on the way and figured it was some financing/tax write off hack.
> I’ve overheard enough conversations between high net worth individuals to say there’s absolutely unique qualities about land as an asset class or they wouldn’t hold so much of it.
Every asset class has its own uniquely defining characteristics in financial terms. There are unique qualities of stocks, of bonds, of index funds, etc. But I don't see any fundamental difference between land and any other scarce resources in real economic terms, and definitely nothing sufficient to treat land differently as a fundamental philosophical principle!
> Immobility: Land doesn’t move, making it a stable tax base.
Lots of things don't move in any meaningful way with respect to taxing jurisdictions.
> Scarcity: No more land is being created, so taxing it efficiently is crucial.
I disagree that no more land is being created in an economic sense. As I mentioned above, developments that increase efficiency of particular use cases for land are economically equivalent to the supply of land expanding.
And there are even some cases where new land is even being created in a literal physical sense -- see the Netherlands, for example.
> Non-distortionary: Taxing unimproved land doesn’t distort transactions.
It certainly does distort transactions for unimproved land. And what is "unimproved land" in the first place? Whose definitions apply, and how do we handle edge cases. If I purchase a plot of land for the specific purpose of maintaining it in its natural state as a preserve, is it improved or unimproved?
> Local Funding: LVT may be an effective way to fund local government since land cannot be moved to avoid taxes
But there are lots of other ways of avoiding taxes. Still, this purely pragmatic point -- which correctly understands taxation as a means to fund the necessary operations of government, and not a tool to manipulate behavior or as an end in itself -- explains why a large portion of local government funding already comes from property taxes.
I'm not sure what trying to take what already works and reconstitute it according to Georgist principles (which are logically weak and entail a lot of dangerous implications) brings to the table.
> So yeah. Tax the damn land already. Especially to fund local government and services, which you kinda need to have a functioning society.
Property is already widely taxed, local governments are already funded, and society is already functioning, car washes and all.
I'm not sure I follow the reasoning here. How does the existence of economic scarcity imply that it makes sense to tax anything?
> If you can make good use of the space you're taking up, go ahead, but you should compete fairly with other uses of the space.
But that's already inherent in the nature of scarcity -- the more demand there is for a scarce resource, the higher the price is. So businesses making use of high-value prime real estate are already paying more for it. The law of supply and demand already does what you are proposing. How does paying additional fees to a separate institution with its own perverse incentives add anything to the equation?
> the largely automated facility wasn’t the best use for a prominent Main Street site
This was the personal opinion of a local bureaucrat who thought his personal opinion should be policy. That's why the company is suing.