Consider someone who’d like to use their property in a way that isn’t very financially rewarding—for example, as a community hub. Once they own their property, they might need relatively little income to be viable (and therefore pay little in income taxes). However, if a land value tax is implemented, they’d need to pay the same amount of tax as a commercial business using that same property would, which might force them to move or shut down.
Those who use their property as a community hub are already paying the opportunity cost. Land value tax makes it more explicit.
“Opportunity cost” is another slippery concept that in the economic framework seems similar to other costs, but in a sociopolitical framework seems extremely different.
Suppose I steal $1000 of your stuff. You can describe this as me imposing a $1000 cost on you.
But suppose instead that I offer you $1000 if you quit your job. Assuming you’re happy enough with your job that this doesn’t move you to act, then what I’ve done is just to “impose” a $1000 opportunity cost on you. But of course this does no harm to you.
And so the phrase “opportunity cost” is inherently a misleading one, especially when used as you do above (i.e. talking about “paying” an opportunity cost in the same way that you pay taxes). You have elided the distinction between me freely choosing to optimize for other things than financial returns, versus me having my money taken away from me using the threat of force.
In a hypothetical frictionless spherical cow world,
using your property for a community hub,
renting your property for $X, and using that money to rent some other place as a community hub
are equivalent. Arguably, the latter gives you more flexibility for the placement of the community hub.
Also, there are two sides of the coin. You see the world without land value tax as one where people are free to use their property for community hubs, as opposed to e.g. building a shop or a factory there. I see it as one where most people can’t afford any property that could be used for the community hub, but there are many places that are currently used for literally nothing: neither community hubs, nor factories nor offices.
Those who use their property as a community hub are already paying the opportunity cost. Land value tax makes it more explicit.
“Opportunity cost” is another slippery concept that in the economic framework seems similar to other costs, but in a sociopolitical framework seems extremely different.
Suppose I steal $1000 of your stuff. You can describe this as me imposing a $1000 cost on you.
But suppose instead that I offer you $1000 if you quit your job. Assuming you’re happy enough with your job that this doesn’t move you to act, then what I’ve done is just to “impose” a $1000 opportunity cost on you. But of course this does no harm to you.
And so the phrase “opportunity cost” is inherently a misleading one, especially when used as you do above (i.e. talking about “paying” an opportunity cost in the same way that you pay taxes). You have elided the distinction between me freely choosing to optimize for other things than financial returns, versus me having my money taken away from me using the threat of force.
In a hypothetical frictionless spherical cow world,
using your property for a community hub,
renting your property for $X, and using that money to rent some other place as a community hub
are equivalent. Arguably, the latter gives you more flexibility for the placement of the community hub.
Also, there are two sides of the coin. You see the world without land value tax as one where people are free to use their property for community hubs, as opposed to e.g. building a shop or a factory there. I see it as one where most people can’t afford any property that could be used for the community hub, but there are many places that are currently used for literally nothing: neither community hubs, nor factories nor offices.