From: lfsheldon@gmail.com   
      
   On 3/28/2015 16:49, Stephen Sprunk wrote:   
   > On 21-Mar-15 16:58, bob wrote:   
   >> On 2015-03-21 20:25:46 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:   
   >>> btw, land is a lot easier to assess than buildings as you just need   
   >>> to know square footage and buildable characteristics and what   
   >>> surrounding properties are used for. With buildings, you have to   
   >>> keep up with changes in the building's characteristics over time   
   >>> and correctly entering building permits and the like. From a quick   
   >>> drive by, the number of bathrooms in a house isn't possible to   
   >>> estimate.   
   >>   
   >> The downside of land value tax is that the owner of the land will   
   >> find himself liable for this tax as a result of events entirely   
   >> outside of his own control.  Suppose I buy a house in the "rough" end   
   >> of town because I can't afford a big enough house int the expensive   
   >> end of town.  Suppose my part of town then goes up in the world and   
   >> suddenly my home becomes expensive.  Is it really reasonable that I   
   >> should be liable for a huge tax demand that, perhaps, I can't afford,   
   >> because some other factors have come to bear on my neighbourhood?   
   >   
   > It's reasonable because you benefit (perhaps yet unrealized) from an   
   > increase in property value through no effort of your own.  If you can't   
   > afford to pay the higher taxes, sell the property for a nice profit and   
   > move somewhere cheaper--and let someone else pay those higher taxes.   
   >   
   >> Perhaps a farmer buys a field in the middle of nowhere, to grow some   
   >> crops on.  Then a highway gets built and suddenly his field is in the   
   >> middle of expensive commuter-land.  Sure, if the farmer sold his   
   >> land, he could realise a huge profit,   
   >   
   > That's the point; farming is no longer the best use of that land, so he   
   > _should_ have an incentive to sell it to someone who will use it more   
   > productively--and pay higher taxes on it to fund the higher level of   
   > public services that will be needed.   
   >   
   >> but if all the farmland in the area suddenly becomes suburbia,   
   >   
   > He might have to move a few miles further away from the city, but that's   
   > it.  Or he could just take the millions he made selling his farm to   
   > developers, invest it and retire.   
   >   
   >>> Land taxes tax value that the land owner hasn't created. The value   
   >>> is created by society in general; part of the value created by   
   >>> society is through government spending.   
   >>   
   >> Sure, land value tax is one way of taxing the benefit an individual   
   >> person gains from wider societal improvements.  It is not the only   
   >> one, though, and in certain circumstances may not be the fairest   
   >> one.   
   >   
   > Land is the scarcest resource we have (as the saying goes, God ain't   
   > creating any more of it), and it's also the simplest to tax, the   
   > toughest tax to evade and the most stable tax base, all of which easily   
   > overcome the various factors that make other tax systems appear better   
   > on paper but much worse in practice.   
      
   The twisted thinking that is resulting in Omaha paving the prairie   
   westward.  I expect that they will be collecting their "wheel tax" in   
   Cheyenne soon.   
      
      
   --   
   The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:   
      
   The fact that they are infallible; and,   
      
   The fact that they learn from their mistakes.   
      
      
   Quis custodiet ipsos custodes   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)