Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The most obvious solution to this is to do away with land ownership entirely. If the land is state owned and the value of a lease on it is auctioned to the highest paying renter, the market price of the land is precisely the same as the tax paid on it.



that seems like a super clean solution as long as nothing ever gets built, but the problem is the same: it's not a question of how much the land is worth, it's a question of how much the unimproved land is worth.

everything gets messy as soon as you start improving the land, because the improvements are not easily removed from the land. if the state owns the land but i own the skyscraper i built on it, what happens to my skyscraper when the state auctions my lease off to somebody else? the whole point of a land value tax is that the value of land changes after things have been built on it (and around it), and you need to capture that change in value.


Buildings are constructed with borrowed money. Attach said debt to the land, rather than the person building, and payments on it are a part of the lease. If you build a sky-scraper, you only pay for it while you occupy the land. Then if someone outbids you for it, they have to pay the debt.


How does this differ from an investment then? Debts attached to people can be recovered through their assets, but if the only "asset" is a temporary government lease on some land there's nothing to recover if it falls through. Furthermore, this leads to so many conflicts of interest it's not even funny, whats to stop someone from taking out a huge loan and paying their own construction company to do the work at a premium?


It can't fall through, because the debt is on the land and not a person. The land doesn't run out of money. There will always be a buyer for the building who will then have to pay down the loan. If there isn't a buyer for the building, then the building is worth less than the loan and even in the traditional case of the banking issuing the loan to an individual, there would not be sufficient recovered capital to repay the loan.

TL;DR the lender loses money iff the value of the building is less than the money they loaned to build it (true in any system).

> whats to stop someone from taking out a huge loan and paying their own construction company to do the work at a premium?

That's called embezzling. Are you familiar with corporate law? The "limited liability" in "limited liability company" refers to the fact that the owners of a company are not liable for the debts owed by said company. One can, in principal, take out a large loan on behalf of a company you own, pay it to yourself as salary, then declare the company insolvent and pocket the cash. Laws exists to prevent this and could be extended to fraud under the new system.


>even in the traditional case of the banking issuing the loan to an individual, there would not be sufficient recovered capital to repay the loan.

This just is not necessarily true, and more importantly runs into the issue that now lenders will not lend to people and land that they believe cannot be be positively valued for the entire term of the debt. In real life if you buy a home on a 30 year mortgage, the lender does not need to care much if it could be less valuable in 20 years, only that it retains enough value to be worth the rest of the loan if it needs to be seized.

As for embezzlement, go try to get a loan as a new LLC without assets, or revenue, or personal collateral. The reality is that under your proposed system, no bank would ever take the risk of loaning money to a plot of land. Forget fraud and embezzlement, there's zero mechanism for preventing flat out bad management from ruining a plot over and over again if you don't attach debts to people.


so then it isn't just that the state owns the land, but for all practical purposes the state owns the land and the buildings on it. nobody ever owns any property anymore, and all property is only leased from the state.

i don't know that i'm even necessarily against this idea, but it's a long ways from just being a land value tax at this point.


Why would I pay to improve the land if next year someone can simply outbid me and take the land off me?


Long-term leases exist for this function.

Often 99-year leases (e.g., Hong Kong to the UK).

In practice, the tenant can typically break the lease with minimal consequence as the landlord (the government) can generally find new tenants, and diversifies risk over many landholdings.


That removes any benefit of confiscating all land and leasing it out while still retaining all the society destroying consequences of this idea. Basically at this point it's just a proposal to confiscate all land and resell it, for fun I guess.


It prevents land speculation, as bidding leads to higher rents, rather than asset inflation.


This is an important part of the system. People won't construct buildings unless they feasibly believe that they can also provide the highest return on investment for said buildings and therefore pay the highest rent on the land. If you are unable to produce the greatest value with a piece of land, why should you be allowed to hoard it away from someone who can do something better with it? That said, this theory obviously falls short in practice, but equally obviously, there exist many practical remedies to that problem. Lease values can be adjusted based on the value of surrounding leases, then negotiated down by an auction if the owner believes they've grown to high, rather than periodically re-auctioned. Down payments can force bidders to internalise the cost of displacing existing business. Existing lease holders would clearly be given an advantage in the bidding process if they choose to initiate it.

Edit: I should add that the simplest way to handle this is to attach the debt used for building to the land instead of the land-owner. That way there is no loss for auctioning off the land after building.


So I rent somewhere cheap, take out massive loans, pay my brother to build a house (with a large profit), then leave the debt with the land and don't bother next year?

The LVT solution to this is valuing the unimproved land. I.e. if someone were to buldose the buildings and infrastructure actually on the land, how much would it cost to rent it.

This works fine on a lot-by-lot basis, we tend to know the value of land in cities. It starts falling when you buy a large amount of land. The value of land in Manhattan is very high obviously. Remove the empire state building and that plot is still worth a lot of money.

The value of that lot is the surrounding infrastructure - transport, power, proximity of people, etc.

If one company owned the entire island as a single lot though, the unimproved land would be very low. If two companies owned the land, the unimproved value suddenly balloons.


That still doesn't answer the question "Why would I pay to improve the land if next year someone can simply outbid me and take the land off me?". Why wouldn't this world's Blackrock swoop in the instant a profitable lease comes up for auction?


> Why would I pay to improve the land if next year someone can simply outbid me and take the land off me?

You wouldn't pay. The building would be financed by debt and the debt would be attached to the land. You'd only pay the interest on that debt for as long as you maintain the lease on the land.

> Why wouldn't this world's Blackrock swoop in the instant a profitable lease comes up for auction?

Two reasons: Firstly, Blackrock could hypothetically do this in real life but they don't because they don't have the money. And secondly, from an ideological perspective they would have no motivation to. You are still thinking in terms of "owning land" and the idea that it's better to own more land. Under the new system, you can't own land, only rent it. Hence you want to minimise the amount of land you are leasing. If Blackrock gets the lease, they will lose money on the down payment, then lose money on the rent unless they can find something productive to do with the land. Any business they set up won't be competitive as they'll be paying more in rent than the surrounding businesses. Overpaying on rent is a strictly money-losing affair.


Even if I don't pay in money, I have to pay in time and effort. Does the bank lend me that too? Furthermore, no Blackrock cannot do this in real life because in real life you are not0 _required_ to sell a thing to anyone.

Let me outline this simple hypothetical

I lease a plot of land with a parking lot on it. I spend a year of my time building a quadplex on it, financed by a loan, and get tenants in. After all my expenses, I am making 10k a month in profit! Next year rolls around, tell me what stops Blackrock from taking the lease by offering the value of the lease+9.5k per month and making their money in quantity? Down payment doesn't matter because they have so much more in assets than me that they can make use of a plot of land that generates less profit than I need to live on.


Well then Blackrock would only make $500/month in profit. This is good, you found an actor willing to pay higher taxes for the same land and thus contribute more to the public purse.


The issue is that the value for all land in all cases trends towards zero. If you start making a profit you have to give the government all or most of it, if you lose money you just abandon the plot since the debt isn't attached to you. There's zero reason to ever do anything.


This is obvious? This seems like a terrible solution.

Lease durations are important here; if you're like England and have 99 year leases instead of freeholds or something, then that's great, it's basically ownership, but you get no unit pricing signal until the next 99 year renewal rolls around.

Practically speaking, from a Georgist perspective, ths isn't even useful because it doesn't convey anything about the unimproved value. What if you make improvements to the land, like build a house or something? Do you have to knock it down when you leave? Is the government the only entity that can build houses?

What do you do when Elon Musk decides he doesn't like you and outbids you on every parcel you try to get a lease on?


Individually unit price signals are indicated as infrequently as once a century. In practice the individual units turn over more frequently, and aggregate price signals are available as other units turn over far more frequently.

On turnover, it's interesting to note that real-estate mobility has fallen markedly in the United States in recent decades. Whereas ~20% of individuals moved in any given year from 1948 through the early 1970s, that figure has fallen to about 7% in the 2020s:

<https://paulkedrosky.com/americans-are-less-mobile-than-ever...>

That translates to a move every 5 years to roughly every 15 years, or three times the residency.

Ironically, among the factors contributing to this is being "stuck" by a mortgage, e.g., a house that's under water (more owed than the unit can be sold for), particularly in states without non-recourse ("walkaway") lending laws. This isn't the only factor, but it does contribute.

Removing private land ownership might well improve this situation.


Poison the land to reduce your tax basis.


That would be illegal.


> What do you do when Elon Musk decides he doesn't like you and outbids you on every parcel you try to get a lease on?

What does he do when he runs out of money for the down payments? Rich people can already price people out of industries in our existing economic system.

> then that's great, it's basically ownership

The entire point is to get rid of ownership, but there is no need to renew the lease at all. Just increase it based on increases in surrounding leases. Then allow the value to be negotiated down through voluntary renewal.

> What if you make improvements to the land, like build a house or something? Do you have to knock it down when you leave? Is the government the only entity that can build houses?

You build the house with debt, the debt stays with the land. If you leave, then the person who comes in after you has to pay for the construction of the house.


Rich people can price others out of industries, but in this scheme the ONLY seller is the government and sales are mandatory. In your scheme, Elon Musk can outbid you on your lease, there's nothing you can do about it, and you don't even get the proceeds from it.


First of all, this isn't a problem with voluntary renewals as I mentioned earlier in another thread (voluntary renewals is where the price is adjusted based on averages for the local area and only renewed if the owner thinks it's too high, down payments also discourage people from over-zealously renting when renewals happen). Secondly, the entire point of Georgism is that people who are under-performing are priced out of hoarding land. The only situation where it makes sense for Elon Musk to overpay on rent to force someone out of their land is when that person is a competitor of his, and this is illegal under existing anti-trust law. Otherwise, him outbidding owners on the lease is the whole point of the system.


I wish I lived in your world where wealthy people didn't try to ruin the lives of others for petty reasons.


My world has no wealthy people. It doesn't stop at government ownership of land.


Oh that sucks, I thought you were one of the fun homegrown econ crackpots with weird new ideas rather than just rehashing the same old insane theories.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: