From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   On 30-Mar-15 00:16, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:   
   >> Stephen Sprunk wrote:   
   >>> If the current use is not the highest and best use of the land,   
   >>> then the total property value should be less than the land   
   >>> value, to account for the cost of clearing the current   
   >>> improvements. IOW, the improvements' value would be negative--yet   
   >>> another reason to tax only land value.   
   >>   
   >> There is a broader issue, and that is the ability of the landowner   
   >> to pay taxes.   
   >   
   > You're completely missing the point. If the landowner can't afford to   
   > pay taxes on the value of land, it's because the land isn't earning   
   > any rent. It's not earning any rent because the landowner is   
   > speculating in vacant land, or he's a slumlord allowing a building   
   > to deteriorate and can't find good tenants, etc.   
      
   Well, if we consider the previously-mentioned case of a farmer, it's   
   possible that what he earns from the land was enough to pay the taxes on   
   the old value but not the new, higher value.   
      
   The other side of that is that if the value went up, there must be some   
   potential buyers who think they can make enough off that property to pay   
   the taxes and still keep some for themselves.  Otherwise, nobody would   
   want to buy the property and the value would fall.   
      
   > If the land earns rent, then a portion of that can go back to the   
   > government in taxes, absolutely fair as part of the land value was   
   > created by the value of government services.   
      
   Not just by govt services but also by its proximity to other people, so   
   it makes sense that those other people share in the value they're   
   creating via taxation.   
      
   > Oh: There's a macroeconomic concept of "imputed rent" in which the   
   > landowner who is also using his own property is paying rent to   
   > himself.   
      
   Ah, I wondered what the term for that was.  Thanks.   
      
   >> Many, many years ago government got away from just taxing real   
   >> estate and taxed income and commerce.  Generally, these were   
   >> percentage--not flat fee taxes--so they more money one earned or   
   >> spent, the more in taxes they paid.  This was seen to be more   
   >> fair.   
   >   
   > By landowners, yeah. By tenants, not so much.   
      
   Landowners just pass on property taxes to their tenants anyway, so there   
   is no reason for them to prefer any other form of tax--unless they have   
   no tenants, i.e. they're speculators.   
      
   S   
      
   --   
   Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein   
   CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the   
   K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)