I have a house on a nice piece of land, and I also have a “land destruct” button, which will do something horrible to the land below my house (e.g. poison it, or make it awfully smelly).
If you offer more money for the land than I declared as its proper value, so that now I have to sell you the land, I will make sure to press the button before I leave.
(Is this illegal? Then I will do the worst thing that is still technically legal, or perhaps not exactly legal but very difficult to prove.)
.
Less confrontationally, this will incentivize people to invest more in things they can take away, and less in things they cannot. For example, instead of planting flowers in the ground in my garden, I would cover the garden with large boxes containing some ground, and plant the flowers in them. The obvious implication is that if you outbid me because you like my garden, you are not actually going to get those flowers.
I would optimize my house so that if I take everything away (even if I would have to throw it all away afterwards), the remaining place has as little value as possible. And gradually everyone would learn to do so, unless they want to pay twice the land tax as their neighbors.
I will make sure to press the button before I leave.
This would vindictive, and certainly illegal since it’s their property now. I don’t think the incentive do this is any more than the incentive to burn down someone’s house if they’ve wronged you, or at least graffiti their house.
For example, instead of planting flowers in the ground in my garden, I would cover the garden with large boxes containing some ground
Or you could just increase the value you set for your property?
(To clarify, we’re talking about the bottom proposal in this comment? In the original proposal, bidders make bids on the property and the owner can choose whether or not to accept the highest one.)
And gradually everyone would learn to do so, unless they want to pay twice the land tax as their neighbors.
People are paying tax based on the price of their own property; they’re paying based on a prediction based on the values of their neighbors’ properties.
The comment was written late at night; I probably misunderstood something. Sorry for that.
I think the general idea—think how this will impact people’s strategies, and assume that any tax optimization tricks will become common knowledge after some time—can still be fruitful, but I am not sure how specifically.
I have a house on a nice piece of land, and I also have a “land destruct” button, which will do something horrible to the land below my house (e.g. poison it, or make it awfully smelly).
If you offer more money for the land than I declared as its proper value, so that now I have to sell you the land, I will make sure to press the button before I leave.
(Is this illegal? Then I will do the worst thing that is still technically legal, or perhaps not exactly legal but very difficult to prove.)
.
Less confrontationally, this will incentivize people to invest more in things they can take away, and less in things they cannot. For example, instead of planting flowers in the ground in my garden, I would cover the garden with large boxes containing some ground, and plant the flowers in them. The obvious implication is that if you outbid me because you like my garden, you are not actually going to get those flowers.
I would optimize my house so that if I take everything away (even if I would have to throw it all away afterwards), the remaining place has as little value as possible. And gradually everyone would learn to do so, unless they want to pay twice the land tax as their neighbors.
This would vindictive, and certainly illegal since it’s their property now. I don’t think the incentive do this is any more than the incentive to burn down someone’s house if they’ve wronged you, or at least graffiti their house.
Or you could just increase the value you set for your property?
(To clarify, we’re talking about the bottom proposal in this comment? In the original proposal, bidders make bids on the property and the owner can choose whether or not to accept the highest one.)
People are paying tax based on the price of their own property; they’re paying based on a prediction based on the values of their neighbors’ properties.
The comment was written late at night; I probably misunderstood something. Sorry for that.
I think the general idea—think how this will impact people’s strategies, and assume that any tax optimization tricks will become common knowledge after some time—can still be fruitful, but I am not sure how specifically.