Many countries to have some taxes on land ownership. Some even quite significant. Usually they are adjusted, when the land is sold. A problem I have with the idea to adjust them regularly for valuation is, that it can happen that way, that you are taxed out of your home without a change in your income, e.g. you have a house and have calculated, that with your income in a relative save position, e.g. in the public service, are able to pay for it. Now a new Metro is build. This can double the value of your house in the market (e.g. in Munich suburbs this a realistic scenario). If the tax is adjusted for the valuation gain, the tax will double, and you might not be able anymore to pay it. Maybe your partnership based approach has a solution for that. But the 'old economy' model doesn't provide such possibilities easily. [Not to mention that in villages the local land owners are often the ones, that are politically active and shove windfall gains on to each other; e.g. real world politics is corrupt]
I don't think that such a tax should be the single tax. Land ownership is important but it isn't the only thing that determines the capacity to contribute to the public budget. Why should a family with a chronically ill parent pay the same for the public budget as childless people earning lots of money by work, just because they occupy the same amount of space? Income and consumption are as well approximate measures for capacity to contribute.
In places like Africa, land is perceived as a Commons belonging to the tribe, rather than to individuals. In other societies eg genuinely Islamic societies, the position is that absolute ownership of land is God's alone, and it is expected that a payment will be made to society for the use of it.
Yes. So they can't mortgage their land e.g. to buy fertiliser. Somebody who has access to fertiliser will have to form a partnership with them... Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
A problem I have with the idea to adjust them regularly for valuation is, that it can happen that way, that you are taxed out of your home without a change in your income, e.g. you have a house and have calculated, that with your income in a relative save position, e.g. in the public service, are able to pay for it.
So you're for strict rent control with vacancy resets? In other words, landlords shouldn't be able to raise rents except when the tenant moves out and is replaced by someone else? After all, it's an even worse problem for renters since rent tends to be rather more than property tax.
Many countries to have some taxes on land ownership. Some even quite significant. Usually they are adjusted, when the land is sold. A problem I have with the idea to adjust them regularly for valuation is, that it can happen that way, that you are taxed out of your home without a change in your income, e.g. you have a house and have calculated, that with your income in a relative save position, e.g. in the public service, are able to pay for it. Now a new Metro is build. This can double the value of your house in the market (e.g. in Munich suburbs this a realistic scenario). If the tax is adjusted for the valuation gain, the tax will double, and you might not be able anymore to pay it. Maybe your partnership based approach has a solution for that.
You identify valid issues, and yes, I do have a solution.
The occupier of the land will have the option of paying taxes by joining the Community Partnership and transferring Units of land rental value to the community via the location levy.
ie he may pay in kind.
One of the outcomes of the model I am describing is of the gradual introduction/evolution of a Rental Pool.
The key mechanisms for introduction of unitised rentals as what is essentially a new geographically bounded currency are:
(a) a solution for "distressed" property owners. So anyone wishing to refinance their mortgage may do so;
(b) an optimal and non-toxic, means of equity release (which is what is happening, above to pay the taxes).
Martin:
I don't think that such a tax should be the single tax. Land ownership is important but it isn't the only thing that determines the capacity to contribute to the public budget.
I agree totally with you. Henry George lived in simpler times, when land value constituted a much greater proportion of value in circulation than it does today.
There are other privileges available upon which to make a levy.
First, I would make a carbon levy on the use of carbon-based fuels (ie the privilege of use of non-renewables) and also on other mined resources. This would be used to fund the transition to renewable energy.
Second, I would replace all corporate taxes, taxation on dividends, and VAT with a simple levy on the gross revenues of any entity where investors benefit from the untaxed (or inadequately/imperfectly taxed) privilege of limitation of liability.
Simple, unavoidable, easily collectable (via networked clearing), and getting rid of a massive burden of cost and overheads (ie government tax bureaucracy, and the private sector accountancy/avoidance/minimisation industry) to society. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
