> That proposition exists as a protection from homeowners being screwed by the government being unfair about the value of their land
According to The Permanent Tax Revolt (https://www.amazon.com/Permanent-Tax-Revolt-Property-Transfo...), Proposition 13 was largely the opposite. Previously, homeowners benefited from informal and corrupt tax assessments that lagged market values. After assessment practices were modernized and standardized, homeowners demanded protection from the market. And while many states created protections (e.g. low-income circuit breakers, elderly exemptions, and homeowner exemptions), California’s Proposition 13 protections (along with the later Proposition 58/193 hereditary privileges) are probably the most regressive among the states.
> does property tax really even make sense? This person PURCHASED the land but still has to owe the government taxes even though they own it?
Yes, a property tax (particularly, on the unearned portion which is the land value) makes sense as a progressive way to enable the fruits of the community to be used to benefit the community. For one thing, a private owner should not reap all the benefits from the economic activity around him that he did not earn. For another thing, private ownership should not last forever because that leads to concentration of wealth; one could similarly ask whether copyright and patents should last forever.
> Secondly, it is really important to think of real estate as an investment more than a physical asset. These people got in the market early and their investment is giving them great returns. I think that is fair.
I disagree. The economic justification for investing in capital is that investors help to make the country more productive. Driving up the price of land does the opposite; investment in land crowds out investment in capital. The value of land comes from the neighborhood’s economic activity and public investments, not from the individual landowner. Now, you could argue that giving the landowner some incentive will encourage more civic-minded engagement, but I think it’s a far cry from justifying giving him 100% of the increase in ground rents.
For a recent book on the moral foundations of land ownership, I recommend Rethinking the Economics of Land and Housing by Josh Ryan-Collins, Toby Lloyd, Laurie Macfarlane (https://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Economics-Land-Housing-Rya...)
In Henry George’s terminology, he decomposed income into three components based on the three factors of production. Income from competitive labor is called wages, income from competitive capital is called interest, and income from land and other noncompetitive monopolies is called rent. He proposed to tax land and other monopolies heavily, while exempting labor and capital from tax. What I meant is that a progressive income tax has higher rates for people and companies with high profits while exempting capital and labor expenses, which is similar to the Georgist idea of taxing monopolies more heavily than capital and labor.
> You can read the details in "The Flat Tax: Updated Revised Edition"
Thanks for giving the reference to Hall and Rabushka https://www.hoover.org/research/flat-tax. Previously you mentioned making the curve progressive, which is not a flat tax so I just assumed you meant income tax.
In comparison to the current income tax, it seems that Hall and Rabushka do not exclude business interest expenses or personal mortgage interest, but they still do exclude wage expenses. Wages are progressive at the low end (due to the personal allowance) but their tax is not otherwise progressive. And they totally exclude personal capital gains from taxation (such as the sale of your house) (although the current income tax is not very good at taxing capital gains of real estate).
Note that they themselves admit that their flat income tax should be combined with property taxes: “We believe that taxing housing is properly ceded to local governments under our federal system. Local property taxes capture part of the value of the services of a house.” (from Chapter 5: Q&A)
> Its a harmful distortion of the price system.
I disagree that LVT (tax on scarcity rents) is a harmful distortion on prices. Chapters 1-4 of Rethinking the Economics of Land and Housing is a good book on this topic. https://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Economics-Land-Housing-Rya... As you note, the whole point of prices is to incentivize capital investment. But the difference with land is that it has a vertical long-term supply curve, so more money in land does not result in the creation of any more land; it’s just a transfer payment to the old owner.
Ownership of natural resources is a major undeserved source of inequality. We see the inequality playing out in San Francisco: residents who happened to own land became rich, whereas residents who did not own land became impoverished, just as Henry George wrote: “it is as though an immense wedge is being driven through the middle. Those above it are elevated, but those below are crushed” https://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp0.htm. It is better for the poor and better capital allocation to “distort” the economy to prevent extreme inequality between rentiers and laborers+capital.