: So a land value tax system would essentially turn land ownership
: into leasing the right to exclusive access? Would there remain a
: portion of rent for the owner/leaser in order for there to be a
: selling price?
: Since a land appraisal would probably be done annually and the tax
: collected annually can you imagine this scenario: one's land
: appraises for much more than the previous year but landowner
: does not have the money to pay the new higher tax? The land
: value tax does not account for ability to pay. Is this fair?
: Thanks for your previous response it was quite helpful!
More good questions, Brian! Yes, it'd be more like renting from one's community (than from a bank, as now). And because land is precious and taxes are harsh, it'll be good to evolve to land dues, leaving behind land taxes, when the community recovers all or most of the land rent. As you mentioned, some reformers suggest leaving some rent to be retained by owners so that land would have a sale price to make assessing easier. Is that necessary? I don't know. I'd like to hear from professional assessors and appraisers on that point. In our geonomy, the frequency of assessing would likely not be periodic but occasional -- whenever a nearby locations's title gets transferred.
As for inability to pay, it is conceivable tho' not likely, since one receives a rent share or Citizen's Dividend and such jumps in site value are rare (e.g., Silicon Valley). But say even after getting a CD and not having to pay conventional taxes and wages being higher that an owner still could not come up with the money for Land Dues, his neighbors could still demand the dues, forcing the guy to move to a cheaper site, and that way the neighbors could enjoy the fattest rent share and the most efficient use of land in their neighborhood, or, they could grant the owner a deferment -- which is standard practice currently -- and accept a smaller dividend and less efficient use of land.
Presently, when one can't pay a bank or landlord (very rarely the property tax collector), one has to move on (and the property rightists don't seem to complain about that, only the housing advocates do). Moving on due to the greed of an owner leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Moving on for the good of the community is something I could live with. But if the majority prefers to grant deferments, I could happily live with that, too.