> There are clever ways of addressing gaming, for example, to counter undervaluation there could be a rule that says that if you value your land at $X then anyone is legally allowed to force you to sell it to them for $X.
That doesn't work. Just because I inherited my fathers beloved VW Beetle[1] that's only worth $1000 doesn't mean that I want to part with my father's beloved VW Beetle; it means much more to me than the official valuation.
Same goes for any other property - boats, land, etc.
I don't understand the objection. If it's only worth $1000 absent sentimental value then no one will offer to buy it from your for anything more than $1000, therefore you would only pay property taxes on $1000 of value.
> I don't understand the objection. If it's only worth $1000 absent sentimental value then no one will offer to buy it from your for anything more than $1000.
No, but you could be forced to sell at exactly $1000.
And, of course, some people are just mean.
A person who wanted to punish their ex could, by force, buy a beloved item for more than what it is valued for, simply as retaliation against their ex.
Your wedding gifts are typically as close to worthless as possible as far as money goes, and yet someone with a grudge against you could simply take it off you for a small cost to themselves.
So, no, confiscating things from people with "fair reparations" to give them to other people is simply a no-go.
If you cannot understand the objection at this point, then you never will.
> No, but you could be forced to sell at exactly $1000.
No you couldn't. You can't be forced to sell at all unless you are unwilling to pay land value tax on the offered value.
Anyway, I'm proposing a simple game theoretic construct that can address the problem of under- and overvaluation of property with regard to property taxes. I am not a president about to sign a bill into legislation. I acknowledge that this idea requires refinement before it would work in practice. I just thought people would find it interesting.
> No you couldn't. You can't be forced to sell at all unless you are unwilling to pay land value tax on the offered value.
So, under your proposal, you would have to value your property at the sentimental value it has for you, which for some things is infinite.
My theoretical dad's VW would have to be "valued" at $1500, and if I think someone with a grudge against me is willing to pay that, I'd have to progressively increase the tax I pay on it just to keep it?
This is a very bad idea; in fact, I cannot think of a single state that ever experimented with such an idea. If no state, even failed states, thinks it's a good idea I don't see what refinement you could make that turns it from a bad idea into a good idea.
This is a game theoretical idea that shows how to address under- and overvaluation of property. How to refine it into a practical system is an open question but I'm sorry, I just don't see how your example of inheritance of a Beetle scuppers the whole thing.
Property taxation being used to unfairly seize objects of mere sentimental value seems an easy to problem resolve compared to the problem of imposing property taxation at all. The real reason land value tax hasn't seen much use in any jurisdiction is that it massively advantages the common person above the wealthy landowner, so there are huge structural pressures against it.
That doesn't work. Just because I inherited my fathers beloved VW Beetle[1] that's only worth $1000 doesn't mean that I want to part with my father's beloved VW Beetle; it means much more to me than the official valuation.
Same goes for any other property - boats, land, etc.
[1] Example only, I did not