You say the baseline is how others would fare if the owner did not exclude them. But that doesn't fully specify the baseline. We also have to specify what else, if anything, is different in the baseline from the real world. If the baseline is that the owner doesn't exclude others, but all else is equal, including what man-made buildings,…
You say the baseline is how others would fare if the owner did not exclude them. But that doesn't fully specify the baseline. We also have to specify what else, if anything, is different in the baseline from the real world. If the baseline is that the owner doesn't exclude others, but all else is equal, including what man-made buildings, products exist, that would justify not just taxing the market value of the city land, but also the full value of the house itself, and all other man-made goods. That's neither just, nor workable.
IMO the baseline has to be how others would fare if they were excluded from the land, but also they hadn't produced the man-made goods (buildings etc.) they did produce in the real world.
The remaining question is whether a group of people (such as the landowners of a city) are entitled to have the baseline, compared to which they are taxed, be determined based on how people outside the set would fare if the people in the set didn't exclude anyone from any natural resources, but also none of them had produced anything. IMO yes.
I don't fully follow your second paragraph, but are you saying that the total tax owed by the occupants of the city and the developer should be the same after it's divided into plots as when it's all owned by the developer, which is in turn the same as the tax on the land when it was a ranch? That's what I argue would be reasonable. The people who aren't in the city are excluded either way, but they are no better or worse off whether there is a ranch or a city on that land.
But that's not what would happen if the tax is based on market value. Chances are, after a city is built on the land, the value of plots in the city goes way up, per area, compared to when it was agricultural land. If you tax on the basis of market value, the tax the owners of the land collectively pay would go up (either when the city is built, or when it's subdivided into plots, depending on how the tax is assessed).
Well, in a libertarian world, where anyone can build on what was previously agricultural land, and regulations don't artificially limit the supply of residential buildings, perhaps city land wouldn't be much more valuable than agricultural land, at least after there is time for the supply to expand to the demand. Though I guess it would still be somewhat more expensive, even if not as much as it's today in the NIMBYist areas. But then again, if it turns out that city land wouldn't be more expensive than agricultural land, then we're both right: taxing based on market value and agricultural value would be the same.
>"If the baseline is that the owner doesn't exclude others, but all else is equal, including what man-made buildings, products exist, that would justify not just taxing the market value of the city land, but also the full value of the house itself, and all other man-made goods"
There may well be more detail in the baseline, but I want it to follow from my definition, for otherwise the extra details are ad hoc. But I do have a problem. I take it your point is that, if a homeowner were to NOT to exclude others from the land on which their house stands, then, houses being immovable, it would because they no longer exclude others from the house itself. In sum, if others were not excluded, then they would have access to land /and house/, and so need to be compensated for being excluded from that larger package, and so "also the full value of the house itself". Which, as you say, is the wrong answer.
Tricky, but maybe there is a simple fix. True, others need to be compensated for being excluded from house-land package. But how much is that? Now, even if he were not /actually/ to exclude others from the house, it would remain that he /may/ do so (since he built the house), so that others are never owed compensation for being excluded /from the house/. So the compensation for the house-land package actually relates only to the land component, and to determine that, yes, you need to imagine away the house. And that's the right answer.
>are you saying that the total tax owed by the occupants of the city and the developer should be the same after it's divided into plots as when it's all owned by the developer, which is in turn the same as the tax on the land when it was a ranch
Re first equality, I think I want to say that the net /compensation/ should be the same, if the same numbers of people are being excluded to the same amount of land. Re the second equality, I certainly want to deny that land values are to be determined independently of demand, eg by some agrarian measure.
>Chances are, after a city is built on the land, the value of plots in the city goes way up, per area, compared to when it was agricultural land.
Yes, that seems plausible. But why do you care so much about the comparative value of city and agricultural land? Why should they be equal? IS it because you think that the value of land has to relate to some intrinsic property of the land, and so cannot vary with varying demand for that land? And even if so, why is agricultural land the standard?
I care about the question of land value as city land vs. agricultural land because if there is a difference, that implies that there are two significantly different variants of Georgism, which would tax city land differently and, at least in some situations, have different consequences w.r.t. incentives.
One of the selling points of Georgism, more specifically the version where, as much as possible, the tax doesn't depend on human actions, it's non-distortionary, unlike most other taxes. If the tax on any given land doesn't depend on what people do, then it can't disincentivize otherwise useful human activity. But this is less clear if the tax does depend on human actions (such building nearby city infrastructure, which drives up the market value of the land).
You say the baseline is how others would fare if the owner did not exclude them. But that doesn't fully specify the baseline. We also have to specify what else, if anything, is different in the baseline from the real world. If the baseline is that the owner doesn't exclude others, but all else is equal, including what man-made buildings, products exist, that would justify not just taxing the market value of the city land, but also the full value of the house itself, and all other man-made goods. That's neither just, nor workable.
IMO the baseline has to be how others would fare if they were excluded from the land, but also they hadn't produced the man-made goods (buildings etc.) they did produce in the real world.
The remaining question is whether a group of people (such as the landowners of a city) are entitled to have the baseline, compared to which they are taxed, be determined based on how people outside the set would fare if the people in the set didn't exclude anyone from any natural resources, but also none of them had produced anything. IMO yes.
I don't fully follow your second paragraph, but are you saying that the total tax owed by the occupants of the city and the developer should be the same after it's divided into plots as when it's all owned by the developer, which is in turn the same as the tax on the land when it was a ranch? That's what I argue would be reasonable. The people who aren't in the city are excluded either way, but they are no better or worse off whether there is a ranch or a city on that land.
But that's not what would happen if the tax is based on market value. Chances are, after a city is built on the land, the value of plots in the city goes way up, per area, compared to when it was agricultural land. If you tax on the basis of market value, the tax the owners of the land collectively pay would go up (either when the city is built, or when it's subdivided into plots, depending on how the tax is assessed).
Well, in a libertarian world, where anyone can build on what was previously agricultural land, and regulations don't artificially limit the supply of residential buildings, perhaps city land wouldn't be much more valuable than agricultural land, at least after there is time for the supply to expand to the demand. Though I guess it would still be somewhat more expensive, even if not as much as it's today in the NIMBYist areas. But then again, if it turns out that city land wouldn't be more expensive than agricultural land, then we're both right: taxing based on market value and agricultural value would be the same.
>"If the baseline is that the owner doesn't exclude others, but all else is equal, including what man-made buildings, products exist, that would justify not just taxing the market value of the city land, but also the full value of the house itself, and all other man-made goods"
There may well be more detail in the baseline, but I want it to follow from my definition, for otherwise the extra details are ad hoc. But I do have a problem. I take it your point is that, if a homeowner were to NOT to exclude others from the land on which their house stands, then, houses being immovable, it would because they no longer exclude others from the house itself. In sum, if others were not excluded, then they would have access to land /and house/, and so need to be compensated for being excluded from that larger package, and so "also the full value of the house itself". Which, as you say, is the wrong answer.
Tricky, but maybe there is a simple fix. True, others need to be compensated for being excluded from house-land package. But how much is that? Now, even if he were not /actually/ to exclude others from the house, it would remain that he /may/ do so (since he built the house), so that others are never owed compensation for being excluded /from the house/. So the compensation for the house-land package actually relates only to the land component, and to determine that, yes, you need to imagine away the house. And that's the right answer.
>are you saying that the total tax owed by the occupants of the city and the developer should be the same after it's divided into plots as when it's all owned by the developer, which is in turn the same as the tax on the land when it was a ranch
Re first equality, I think I want to say that the net /compensation/ should be the same, if the same numbers of people are being excluded to the same amount of land. Re the second equality, I certainly want to deny that land values are to be determined independently of demand, eg by some agrarian measure.
>Chances are, after a city is built on the land, the value of plots in the city goes way up, per area, compared to when it was agricultural land.
Yes, that seems plausible. But why do you care so much about the comparative value of city and agricultural land? Why should they be equal? IS it because you think that the value of land has to relate to some intrinsic property of the land, and so cannot vary with varying demand for that land? And even if so, why is agricultural land the standard?
I care about the question of land value as city land vs. agricultural land because if there is a difference, that implies that there are two significantly different variants of Georgism, which would tax city land differently and, at least in some situations, have different consequences w.r.t. incentives.
One of the selling points of Georgism, more specifically the version where, as much as possible, the tax doesn't depend on human actions, it's non-distortionary, unlike most other taxes. If the tax on any given land doesn't depend on what people do, then it can't disincentivize otherwise useful human activity. But this is less clear if the tax does depend on human actions (such building nearby city infrastructure, which drives up the market value of the land).