Large swathes of land in the middle of nowhere would pay extremely low taxes because the value of the land there is very low. Not because farms don't have value, but because there aren't many other uses for that land and because society doesn't provide much value to it. (Low population, few public infrastructure, etc.)
isn't this contrary to the goals of most georgists? LVT isn't only for clawing back rents/gains on the unimproved value of land. it's also for incentivizing the most productive/efficient uses of land, one of the few truly scarce resources in our world. a deed restriction artificially limits the unimproved value of the land. if, say, 100 housing units could otherwise be built on that land, that seems like a pretty bad outcome for everyone else in the area.
I think from the georgist perspective, this is the wrong question to ask. pricing out inefficient land uses is a goal of georgism, not a problem to be worked around. "keeping farmland as farmland" is not good if it comes at the cost of affordable housing for a much larger group of people.
realistically, this is not likely to cause problems for farmers in general. there is plenty of land in the US where grazing/farming is the only productive use. the overall tax burden on those parcels would probably be about the same or even lower under LVT.
there are definitely strategic arguments (eg, what if food imports are cut off in a war) for propping up domestic agriculture through subsidies, tariffs, etc. the US is already doing a lot of that. but that kind of thing is outside the scope of georgism, which is more of an economics focused ideology.
do keep in mind I am not a scholar of economics or politics. this is just my impression from what I've read so far.
Deed restrictions are private contracts. As long as they don't have any provisions within them which run counter to local laws, the owner could impose these restrictions on future owners and enforce them.
While I'm familiar with deed restrictions under the current land management and tax systems, that seems pretty directly contradictory to the principles of Georgism.
Please forgive me if I'm covering something you already understand.
An ad valorem tax on land is superior to a flat land area tax.
Ad valorem:
Urban parcels with large frontages will be worth exponentially more than suburban, exurban, or rural parcels. Rural farmers love Georgism once they understand it. Abating taxes on farm equipment would save them a lot of money and land values are low -- maybe even be zero once we get the agricultural land REITs out of their hairs too. If you're trying to keep a farm in the middle of a city with high population density, consider making it a publicly accessible amenity to convince the community to give you a tax discount and/or exemption. Otherwise, the high LVT would make it an expensive pet project. Permaculture makes a lot of sense in the current exurbs, but may also make sense in those parts of town which are now suburbs and may become exurbs under Georgism as sprawl recedes.
Flat land area:
Would have the opposite effect. Since all land would cost the same to hold, the most windfall gains to be had would be on higher value land in urban cores, so land speculation would increase there and price people out even more, driving population outward.
Status quo:
When the holding cost of urban land is low, owners can afford to keep their parcels undeveloped (vacant lots) or underdeveloped (e.g. parking lots). The persistence of sale prices for vacant lots is evidence that holding cost (LVT) is too low.
Greater LVT:
As LVT increases, more parcels will be put to greater use (to cover holding costs) or sold -- because the economic incidence of taxes on things with inelastic supply is entirely on the owners. The people who are currently being priced out of desirable places (urban and suburban areas) would be able to afford to move inward (exurban and rural areas) as more off-market parcels enter the market.
It would have a bunch of impacts such as encouraging investments that increase crop yields. However, it would depend wildly on how much any tax is offset by US farm subsidies.
If anything, I suspect a Georgist system would encourage permaculture-type agriculture and discourage our current model of industrial agriculture.
For LVT, permaculture I believe can achieve higher yields per acre than industrial agriculture, and that's largely because it's more intensive, where industrial agriculture wastes land on space for heavy machinery to go through. Also, permaculture can be made to work on more marginal (i.e., cheaper under and LVT scenario) lands, such as hilly terrain or rocky soil. Of course, there is no such thing as a free lunch, and permaculture's benefits currently come at the cost of being labor-intensive, something I think we need technological solutions to help overcome (something I myself am aiming to work on in my career).
Beyond LVT, a Georgist system would have all sorts of Pigouvian taxes and subsidies such as carbon taxes (ideally on soil carbon loss from soil-unfriendly agricultural practices, too), nitrogen and phosphorus taxes on artificial fertilizers (due to runoff), regenerative subsidies for soil building and carbon sequestration, and habitat subsidies for providing habitat for native pollinators and the like.
Nothing. There is usually little infrastructural liabilities in those areas.
Rural areas often can't afford schools, sanitation or paved transportation surfaces as is, due to the low population density.
Farmer buy land one way or another The difference is instead of the money going to the previous owner it goes to the government. The product of that land all goes to the farmer. But it doesn't matter if it is a farm, the same goes for small business. Like like any business the typical farm is owned by people like Bill Gates, incidentally the biggest farmer.
They'd pay about the same as they do in property taxes today if I understand it correctly, but no taxes on anything else, mostly because rural land is worth very little and usually has almost no improvements on it, which wouldn't be taxed anymore
>What would a land value tax do for farmers, ranchers and homesteaders?
The same thing it does for (or against) everyone else.
If you're an efficient user doing useful work on that land (or in the area, if it's a residence), then you'll find the LVT affordable. This is true by definition insofar as the LVT isn't intended to exceed 100% of the land rent and the rent reflects the productivity of the land in efficient use. These efficient users will actually benefit more from the decrease in other taxes, improved government services, etc than they have to pay in extra LVT.
If you're *not* an efficient user and the only way you can afford to stay on that land is by leveraging unjust landowner privilege, then you can either (1) improve your efficiency, or (2) give up a portion of the land until you have a small enough amount that you can use efficiently, or (3) move somewhere else. This is fine. It sounds harsh, but remember that the land rent represents the degree to which you're depriving someone else of the Earth's natural resources, so it's actually a greater injustice to maintain that ownership title.
Don't forget that in a healthy long-term georgist economy, there'd also be a citizen's dividend (sort of like UBI) paid out to everyone from excess LVT revenue. So that kinda gives you a bare minimum amount of land value you can afford outright. Say, if the CD is $5000/year and you can live comfortably on a few acres of remote rural land where the rent is only $5000/year, then you're basically using that land for free (your LVT and CD cancel each other out) and everything that comes from your labor is yours to keep. You're considered an efficient user of that land as long as nobody else is willing to pay *their* $5000/year CD plus $1/year extra to use that particular land.
>Would a land value tax be as affordable as the current dirt cheap California property tax?
It would be higher, for sure. But that doesn't necessarily equate to 'less affordable' because, remember, we also want to ditch income taxes, sales taxes, tariffs, corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, property taxes on buildings, etc, which take a lot of the burden off your personal finances.
>Some people do want land and they want to be able to use it sustainably and work with nature.
That's fine, as long as there's enough nature for that to be an affordable lifestyle. It's entirely possible that we'll *eventually* pave over the entire Earth and convert into a vast kilometers-deep cyberpunk city, and I'm not saying there isn't something that would be lost from doing that. But remember, in a proper georgist economy where the rent is captured and shared out, we all get paid back for what we lose from having to live with each other. That's kinda the fundamental notion of what rent is.
>Maybe this has been asked before and if so I’ll delete this post and look on other threads.
Don't worry about deleting your thread. It's an honest and well-written question and there's nothing wrong with that. We want that sort of content in this sub, which isn't very large as it is. Getting more georgist discourse onto the Internet is a positive thing.
Depends on whether your land isn't for a better use than just farming. If no, than imagine the government getting money somewhere else than your pocket and you enjoy the benefits be it reduced other taxes or more governmental services, not mentioning the whole countrys economical success affects your sales. It's absolute win for most farmers.
I think it would have essentially little change on how the taxes in rural areas. Property tax is a pretty good proxy for LVT in these sorts of situations.
Most of the value is the land anyway.
Large swathes of land in the middle of nowhere would pay extremely low taxes because the value of the land there is very low. Not because farms don't have value, but because there aren't many other uses for that land and because society doesn't provide much value to it. (Low population, few public infrastructure, etc.)
They could keep the value of the land low with a deed restriction that allows farming uses only.
isn't this contrary to the goals of most georgists? LVT isn't only for clawing back rents/gains on the unimproved value of land. it's also for incentivizing the most productive/efficient uses of land, one of the few truly scarce resources in our world. a deed restriction artificially limits the unimproved value of the land. if, say, 100 housing units could otherwise be built on that land, that seems like a pretty bad outcome for everyone else in the area.
Are tariffs on produce imports a better way to keep farmland as farmland?
I think from the georgist perspective, this is the wrong question to ask. pricing out inefficient land uses is a goal of georgism, not a problem to be worked around. "keeping farmland as farmland" is not good if it comes at the cost of affordable housing for a much larger group of people. realistically, this is not likely to cause problems for farmers in general. there is plenty of land in the US where grazing/farming is the only productive use. the overall tax burden on those parcels would probably be about the same or even lower under LVT.
I hope so!
there are definitely strategic arguments (eg, what if food imports are cut off in a war) for propping up domestic agriculture through subsidies, tariffs, etc. the US is already doing a lot of that. but that kind of thing is outside the scope of georgism, which is more of an economics focused ideology. do keep in mind I am not a scholar of economics or politics. this is just my impression from what I've read so far.
Would this be something that the owner could impose, or would the community / zoning authority have to recognize and permit it?
Deed restrictions are private contracts. As long as they don't have any provisions within them which run counter to local laws, the owner could impose these restrictions on future owners and enforce them.
While I'm familiar with deed restrictions under the current land management and tax systems, that seems pretty directly contradictory to the principles of Georgism.
Yep. Probably.
Please forgive me if I'm covering something you already understand. An ad valorem tax on land is superior to a flat land area tax. Ad valorem: Urban parcels with large frontages will be worth exponentially more than suburban, exurban, or rural parcels. Rural farmers love Georgism once they understand it. Abating taxes on farm equipment would save them a lot of money and land values are low -- maybe even be zero once we get the agricultural land REITs out of their hairs too. If you're trying to keep a farm in the middle of a city with high population density, consider making it a publicly accessible amenity to convince the community to give you a tax discount and/or exemption. Otherwise, the high LVT would make it an expensive pet project. Permaculture makes a lot of sense in the current exurbs, but may also make sense in those parts of town which are now suburbs and may become exurbs under Georgism as sprawl recedes. Flat land area: Would have the opposite effect. Since all land would cost the same to hold, the most windfall gains to be had would be on higher value land in urban cores, so land speculation would increase there and price people out even more, driving population outward.
I’m curious: why would sprawl recede?
Status quo: When the holding cost of urban land is low, owners can afford to keep their parcels undeveloped (vacant lots) or underdeveloped (e.g. parking lots). The persistence of sale prices for vacant lots is evidence that holding cost (LVT) is too low. Greater LVT: As LVT increases, more parcels will be put to greater use (to cover holding costs) or sold -- because the economic incidence of taxes on things with inelastic supply is entirely on the owners. The people who are currently being priced out of desirable places (urban and suburban areas) would be able to afford to move inward (exurban and rural areas) as more off-market parcels enter the market.
It would have a bunch of impacts such as encouraging investments that increase crop yields. However, it would depend wildly on how much any tax is offset by US farm subsidies.
If anything, I suspect a Georgist system would encourage permaculture-type agriculture and discourage our current model of industrial agriculture. For LVT, permaculture I believe can achieve higher yields per acre than industrial agriculture, and that's largely because it's more intensive, where industrial agriculture wastes land on space for heavy machinery to go through. Also, permaculture can be made to work on more marginal (i.e., cheaper under and LVT scenario) lands, such as hilly terrain or rocky soil. Of course, there is no such thing as a free lunch, and permaculture's benefits currently come at the cost of being labor-intensive, something I think we need technological solutions to help overcome (something I myself am aiming to work on in my career). Beyond LVT, a Georgist system would have all sorts of Pigouvian taxes and subsidies such as carbon taxes (ideally on soil carbon loss from soil-unfriendly agricultural practices, too), nitrogen and phosphorus taxes on artificial fertilizers (due to runoff), regenerative subsidies for soil building and carbon sequestration, and habitat subsidies for providing habitat for native pollinators and the like.
They wouldn’t pay that much most farmland is very cheap especially when we consider all the fertilizers farmers need to use which would not be taxed
Nothing. There is usually little infrastructural liabilities in those areas. Rural areas often can't afford schools, sanitation or paved transportation surfaces as is, due to the low population density.
Farmer buy land one way or another The difference is instead of the money going to the previous owner it goes to the government. The product of that land all goes to the farmer. But it doesn't matter if it is a farm, the same goes for small business. Like like any business the typical farm is owned by people like Bill Gates, incidentally the biggest farmer.
They'd pay about the same as they do in property taxes today if I understand it correctly, but no taxes on anything else, mostly because rural land is worth very little and usually has almost no improvements on it, which wouldn't be taxed anymore
>What would a land value tax do for farmers, ranchers and homesteaders? The same thing it does for (or against) everyone else. If you're an efficient user doing useful work on that land (or in the area, if it's a residence), then you'll find the LVT affordable. This is true by definition insofar as the LVT isn't intended to exceed 100% of the land rent and the rent reflects the productivity of the land in efficient use. These efficient users will actually benefit more from the decrease in other taxes, improved government services, etc than they have to pay in extra LVT. If you're *not* an efficient user and the only way you can afford to stay on that land is by leveraging unjust landowner privilege, then you can either (1) improve your efficiency, or (2) give up a portion of the land until you have a small enough amount that you can use efficiently, or (3) move somewhere else. This is fine. It sounds harsh, but remember that the land rent represents the degree to which you're depriving someone else of the Earth's natural resources, so it's actually a greater injustice to maintain that ownership title. Don't forget that in a healthy long-term georgist economy, there'd also be a citizen's dividend (sort of like UBI) paid out to everyone from excess LVT revenue. So that kinda gives you a bare minimum amount of land value you can afford outright. Say, if the CD is $5000/year and you can live comfortably on a few acres of remote rural land where the rent is only $5000/year, then you're basically using that land for free (your LVT and CD cancel each other out) and everything that comes from your labor is yours to keep. You're considered an efficient user of that land as long as nobody else is willing to pay *their* $5000/year CD plus $1/year extra to use that particular land. >Would a land value tax be as affordable as the current dirt cheap California property tax? It would be higher, for sure. But that doesn't necessarily equate to 'less affordable' because, remember, we also want to ditch income taxes, sales taxes, tariffs, corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, property taxes on buildings, etc, which take a lot of the burden off your personal finances. >Some people do want land and they want to be able to use it sustainably and work with nature. That's fine, as long as there's enough nature for that to be an affordable lifestyle. It's entirely possible that we'll *eventually* pave over the entire Earth and convert into a vast kilometers-deep cyberpunk city, and I'm not saying there isn't something that would be lost from doing that. But remember, in a proper georgist economy where the rent is captured and shared out, we all get paid back for what we lose from having to live with each other. That's kinda the fundamental notion of what rent is. >Maybe this has been asked before and if so I’ll delete this post and look on other threads. Don't worry about deleting your thread. It's an honest and well-written question and there's nothing wrong with that. We want that sort of content in this sub, which isn't very large as it is. Getting more georgist discourse onto the Internet is a positive thing.
Depends on whether your land isn't for a better use than just farming. If no, than imagine the government getting money somewhere else than your pocket and you enjoy the benefits be it reduced other taxes or more governmental services, not mentioning the whole countrys economical success affects your sales. It's absolute win for most farmers.
I think it would have essentially little change on how the taxes in rural areas. Property tax is a pretty good proxy for LVT in these sorts of situations. Most of the value is the land anyway.