I don't see a good way to get to Georgism without government absorbing the mortgages as the fallout to the economy of all that debt suddenly having little in the way of assets underlying it is a huge problem. I do agree I exaggerated with my claims of $0 since the improvements on the property would have some non-zero value, but land represents the majority value of most houses and the land value would be effectively reduced to zero by the change in value from the taxation. That would be enough to put most mortgages underwater and the asset would no longer sell for the cost of the mortgage. I don't see government doing this and just saying "too bad, investors absorb the loss".
"Another basis on which it is argued that greatly increased taxes on land are infeasible is that if land values were to fall precipitously, the financial system would collapse. It is true that many properties have mortgages that would exceed the value of the property if land taxes were increased significantly. This makes it necessary to think carefully about who should absorb the decline in aggregate asset value that would accompany a significant shift toward taxing land. Nevertheless, it is possible to plan for a restructured financial system that would have shed its dependence on land as collateral." http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Tideman_CTL.html#I._Taxing...
"Furthermore, as we discuss in more detail in our paper, the number of net winners from this reform would far exceed the number of net losers, who, if necessary, could be exempted or compensated at little budgetary cost. The winners would even include almost all of the very rich, who not only hold the vast majority of US land but who as a rule are also very well diversified, with land only accounting for a small share of their portfolios. They would benefit greatly from the countervailing cuts in labour and capital income taxes." https://voxeu.org/article/post-corona-balanced-budget-fiscal...
"It came as a quite natural development that also the question of incorporating these ideas into Danish Law was raised. From the very beginning, Jakob E. Lange was convinced that the problem of indebtedness, especially the mortgage debts, must be solved when the full Land Rent, or Ground Duty (in Danish "Grundskyld") were to be collected for a public revenue.
When in 1889 Henry George was on a speaking tour in England, Jakob E. Lange made use of the opportunity and went to England to meet him and to discuss the problem with him. The memoirs of Jakob E. Lange relate that Henry George completely accepted his standpoint; an eventual full Ground Rent which were to exceed the present property taxes ought to be proportioned between the title owner and the mortgage holder. This agreement between Henry George and Jacob E. Lange is also found expressed in the later correspondance between the two." https://cooperative-individualism.org/bille-frank_danish-ame...
As a first approximation, people would continue to hold title to the land to which they now hold title, and would continue to owe whatever money they now owe. But compensation could be sought on a case-by-case basis, by individuals who stood to bear the costs of the moral accident disproportionately and did not have substantial assets. Any financial institutional whose continued existence was threatened by the transition would be bailed out in exchange for a significant fraction of its equity. The costs of the compensation would be paid by a capital levy.
I don't think this proposal is feasible. Many people owe more than their entire net worth on their primary residence. The plan is to tax land to the point that the value of land for that residence goes to zero leaving only the value of the structure on that land. The structure value is often a small fraction of the total current value of the home. This puts people sizeably underwater and would result in a fair number of people forcibly vacated from their homes as banks sold the structures to pay the mortgages.
The bailouts of various financial institutions would be expensive, as would the system shocks from the various losers on the mortgage debt. Lastly, many people in old age sell their homes to pay for living in a nursing home until they die. This option would become infeasible if we drastically reduce the value of their homes and given their old age they would have no viable alternative to generate alternate capital.
His proposed solution to this is a vague and nebulous "case-by-case" compensation for disproportionate costs without adequate assets. Depending on your definition of inadequate assets and disproportionate costs the total cost of this compensation can range from nearly $0 to the vast majority of all current property values. Keep in mind that a sizeable percentage of the population owns a single family residence that is a disproportionate portion of their net worth and generally factors into their retirement plans. I'd argue that every such individual is disproportionately impacted and does not have adequate assets.
Zillow estimates the total residential property market in the US at $33.6 trillion dollars. I can't find good statistics for single family owners vs landlords but it's easy to assume that close to 50% of the market will be situations I described. This makes it quite possible for the homeowner compensation to be in the area of $16.8 trillion dollars.
Similarly, mortgage debt is often held by pension funds that would struggle to pay their pensions out if that wealth suddenly evaporated or was vastly reduced due to people abandoning their homes. The current US residential mortgage market is $17.6 trillion dollars. Assuming half of this qualified for hardship we'd have $8.8 trillion dollars of subsidies.
There are other institutions and individuals adversely effected and a program to adequately compensate them all may well cost as much as the current US debt which is currently $30.5 trillion dollars.
I think Tideman vastly understates the problem. The introduction of LVT would arguably be the largest wealth transfer within a nation in human history and by his own admission mostly transfers wealth from the old to the young. It has sizeable risk of transferring wealth people can't spare, particularly transferring wealth away from those no longer work and cannot easily generate new wealth.
Perhaps we should just convert all inherited land into 20 year leases with a land value tax being introduced after the lease expires?
Fred Foldvary also discusses the transition and who would ultimately need compensation in https://www.progress.org/articles/the-transition-to-land-val...
I see no evidence that it would be difficult in the slightest to disentangle such things but I’m willing to be convinced otherwise by those who have done an actual analysis of the issue.
Of course, as Foldvary notes, “First of all, compensation for the loss of land value is not morally required. The typical landowner has been receiving an implicit subsidy from the government, as public goods generate higher rent and land value. One could argue that justice requires the title holder to pay back the past subsidies.”
What you see as a problem is not an ethical or economic problem merely a potentially political problem.
Some land owners should have to eat losses. Thats the whole point. If you live on a portfolio of land inherited through your 15th century duke great grand uncle you should be getting a job at McDonalds rather than living off the labor of others.
The problem is less technical and more political. Try to deprive large scale land holders of their property and they will bankroll a fascist uprising and launch a coup while foreign leaders in hock to property owners elsewhere will back the coup and enact punishing sanctions to prevent it from being seen to work.
It'll happen one day probably but the transition will be bloody and violent as it always has been when land is redistributed.
It’s all well and good to say some land owners will have to eat losses. Which land owners? How severe losses? The fact of the matter is that expensive housing in major cities has forced a substantial portion of the middle class to misallocate their portfolios and put far too large a percentage of their funds into real estate in order to have a primary residence. If you feel this group should eat losses without compensation you’re basically saying the government should financially doom them. More broadly it’s not uncommon to see a house in many neighborhoods become 50+% of a retirement plan. Cratering the value of homes without compensation dooms many people to less than half the standard of living they were expecting in retirement.
I agree with you that the transition you want would have to be bloody and violent. It would also have to be authoritarian. Simply put the groups you want to impose huge financial penalties on will oppose you and without them you lack the votes to pass this democratically.
