This would mean that subdividing an existing lot while making no other changes would immediately crater the value of the lot by spiking its tax liabilities. Is that a sensible policy?
And when I complain "why are we so excited about a system with such fine dependence on the exact ownership structure of land?", is "the dependence on the exact ownership structure is so sensitive that we don't even plan to look at it; we'll legislate a fictitious ownership structure instead" a convincing response?
Why is one division of lots less arbitrary than some other division of lots?
Finally, under the system you describe, let's say you own property that has been, in the government's wisdom, registered as two "tax lots", A and B.
You put a building on tax lot A and pay property taxes on it that get assessed against tax lot B.
Then you put a building on tax lot B and pay property taxes on it that get assessed against tax lot A.
How is this tax regime different from a bog-standard property tax regime in which, when you put a building on tax lot A, its property taxes are assessed against tax lot A, and when you put a building on tax lot B, its property taxes are assessed against tax lot B? You develop the land, and then you pay taxes on the developed value.
What happened to the concept of "if you buy a piece of land and build value on it you should not be punished"?
It produces a very different dynamic overall as in almost every cases nearby lots have different owners.
This means that it is very expensive to own a piece of land in manhattan and do nothing with it while you just wait for the price to raise, while it is significantly cheaper to start new developments in "less desirable" parts of town.
I agree with you that a 4 paragraph explanation is not a good practical tax policy, but overall georgism creates better incentives than property taxes.
> What happened to the concept of "if you buy a piece of land and build value on it you should not be punished"?
Yep, it is not perfect, or at the very least the way I understand it has some holes, I still think it is more fair than what we have now and less exploitable.
And when I complain "why are we so excited about a system with such fine dependence on the exact ownership structure of land?", is "the dependence on the exact ownership structure is so sensitive that we don't even plan to look at it; we'll legislate a fictitious ownership structure instead" a convincing response?
Why is one division of lots less arbitrary than some other division of lots?
Finally, under the system you describe, let's say you own property that has been, in the government's wisdom, registered as two "tax lots", A and B.
You put a building on tax lot A and pay property taxes on it that get assessed against tax lot B.
Then you put a building on tax lot B and pay property taxes on it that get assessed against tax lot A.
How is this tax regime different from a bog-standard property tax regime in which, when you put a building on tax lot A, its property taxes are assessed against tax lot A, and when you put a building on tax lot B, its property taxes are assessed against tax lot B? You develop the land, and then you pay taxes on the developed value.
What happened to the concept of "if you buy a piece of land and build value on it you should not be punished"?