tcpip: (Default)
Diary of a B+ Grade Polymath ([personal profile] tcpip) wrote2007-12-10 11:35 pm

Ignorance, Gillard PM, Holidays Approach, Gaming Reviews

Most regular readers will know I'm an advocate of land tax as a replace for inefficient and unproductive taxes on labour and capital. On a whim, I entered this discussion on a property investment website. Enjoy the results. What I find particularly remarkable is their ignorance of basic economics (like the Law of Rent or the distinction between land and capital) on matters they claim expertise in. Actually I must confess I find this a lot; often people with a strong opinion on a topic like to think they're an expert on a topic. Personally, I prefer to form a strong opinion by reaching "deeply considered convictions", based on reason and evidence, rather than having "deeply ingrained prejudices" from emotions and assumptions.

Julia Gillard became the first ever female Prime Minister of Australia yesterday (that's only taken over one hundred years, *grumble*). It's an acting position whilst Rudd is in Bali (finally a PM who's acting on climate change!) , and one which seems to attract a share of odd events. I've sent her a congratulatory email (the last email conversation we had was a little terse; I was writing on behalf of Labor for Refugees and she was shadow minister for immigration).

Speaking of which, for the second year in a row, I'm desparately trying to organise tickets to Bali again over the break. I've contacted Flight Centre, and they've sent an email confirmation saying their processing the request, but no confirmation yet. Meh. It's been years since I've been to the archipelago, and I really want to see it again. New Zealand is not an option this summer (I think I'll go south for winter). If this doesn't work out for whatever reason maybe a visit to Tasmania is in order; it's been a while since I've seen Murdoch's former Vice-Chancellor, Professor Peter Boyce and we remain in irregular correspondence.

This week I finally managed to finish my review of Earthdawn: Gamemaster's Compendium; it's a huge, stunning book and quite good on the substance level as well. Not so good is the old AD&D module D1: Descent into the Depths of the Earth, which is seriously lacking in style, substance and a purpose for existence. Played another session of Legend of the Five Rings last Sunday with a refitted AD&D Oriental Adventures module. It's going very well, if only I can hack out some overall narrative to the various instances of character development and plot leads.

Re: Some guy named Smith

[identity profile] cptjohnc.livejournal.com 2007-12-12 10:59 pm (UTC)(link)
No, land tax is based on the unimproved value only. Zoning, if you like, is an absolute tax on certain types of capital and labour investment on that land.

I guess that's true, but isn't the 'unimproved' value based in part on the potential uses to which the land can be put? (i.e. not all land is created equal-- some of it is on navigable rivers, some of it is arid and unfarmable, some of it is on top of a mountain.)

so even absent the externality represented by zoning or other land use related structures, not all land has equal absolute value (i.e. not all land can be put to all uses), right? And the unimproved value must take this into account somehow, right? Isn't zoning merely an artificial extension of the reality that land isn't really 100% fungible?

Obviously the alternative is that all land is taxed at an equal rate per unit area, which would seem somewhat far-fetched, as it ignores the real scarcity issue. I certainly didn't understand the Land Tax issue this way -- it appeared to take into account the potential that the land had, without actually taxing any improvements constructed on the property. This would seem to go along with your argument -- that keeping otherwise valuable land vacant is expensive, while improving said land makes it effectively cheaper (as it would be taxed at the same rate, regardless of whether it actually produces anything -- thus giving incentive to use it for its highest and best use, right?)

But I guess you're right -- the zoning acts to make the relative cost of converting the land to a 'non-conforming use' more expensive... not the land itself :-)

This is an interesting topic. Thanks!