It's saying what is customary and possible. The landlord does not have to renew, I think that is quite clear from what was written in that article.
> Even the fixed terms for non-commercial use are generally very long
Because they have a land tax and a property tax. I didn't suggest to use Japan's law verbatim, nor would I, their system has a lot of unwanted side effects but it does encourage a lot of building.
> I bid the NPV of the lease + the NPV of the land after the lease. If you outbid me, you're taking an economic loss. I can even afford to overbid a little, because I'm just paying a small percentage of my bid.
Yes, but you didn't get to sign over that lease because I outbid you and it's now my land and the lease will not go forward because, to quote myself:
> 1 point by brigandish 21 hours ago | parent | context | favorite | on: High property taxes are good
Any law will need provisions to prevent corrupt practices. Whether that is easy or difficult should be taken into account, but in this case I don't see the difficulty, because
a) Like Japan's lease law[1], it would be possible (and preferable) to limit lease periods
b) As I pointed out at the start, someone else can buy the land at at a very low price.
> However, if someone bids on the land for that price you must sell.
So even if you follow that avoidance strategy, I'm going to buy your land on the cheap. Perhaps I'll have to raise the tax in the meantime without the comparable rent coming in because of the lease agreement you set, but I get your buildings at the end so that's basically become a mortgage.
Of course, that possibility could be removed by a rule like having a period where a lease is in the offing where prospective buyers can buy and cancel the lease, punishing those setting low rates.
> Ordinary leases (with statutory right of renewal except in certain instances)
> Fixed-term leases (with no right of renewal)
Note that you also characterized the law as providing an upper bound on lease terms, when actually it's the opposite:
> such as ground leases must be 30 years or more except a fixed-term ground lease, which must be 50 years or more
I disagree with most everything you say, and I am not sure further discussion would be productive.
Aside from the minutiae: I do not think there is any reasonable way except assessment to disentangle the value of land and improvements in a way that tracks land value in the short term, which is required for a land value tax to yield its substantial benefits.
> Note that you also characterized the law as providing an upper bound on lease terms, when actually it's the opposite:
> > such as ground leases must be 30 years or more except a fixed-term ground lease, which must be 50 years or more
I quote from the article I shared with you:
> The initial period is 30 years, regardless of the building structure. The lease can then be renewed for 20 years at the first renewal, then ten years thereafter. This differs from the the Old Land Lease in that under the old law, the initial lease period is different depending on the building structure.
and this for fixed-term ground lease:
> The lease contract period is ten years or more and less than 50 years.
Which means we have two articles that are in disagreement but that is irrelevant because again, I am not proposing to use Japanese law verbatim.
> I disagree with most everything you say, and I am not sure further discussion would be productive.
Yes, constantly defending straw man positions or needing to answer how many angels can dance on a pin is not productive for me either.
> Aside from the minutiae:…
Thanks for selling me all your land and making my descendants incredibly wealthy because you thought it was better to avoid taxes.
It's saying what is customary and possible. The landlord does not have to renew, I think that is quite clear from what was written in that article.
> Even the fixed terms for non-commercial use are generally very long
Because they have a land tax and a property tax. I didn't suggest to use Japan's law verbatim, nor would I, their system has a lot of unwanted side effects but it does encourage a lot of building.
> I bid the NPV of the lease + the NPV of the land after the lease. If you outbid me, you're taking an economic loss. I can even afford to overbid a little, because I'm just paying a small percentage of my bid.
Yes, but you didn't get to sign over that lease because I outbid you and it's now my land and the lease will not go forward because, to quote myself:
> 1 point by brigandish 21 hours ago | parent | context | favorite | on: High property taxes are good
Any law will need provisions to prevent corrupt practices. Whether that is easy or difficult should be taken into account, but in this case I don't see the difficulty, because
a) Like Japan's lease law[1], it would be possible (and preferable) to limit lease periods
b) As I pointed out at the start, someone else can buy the land at at a very low price.
> However, if someone bids on the land for that price you must sell.
So even if you follow that avoidance strategy, I'm going to buy your land on the cheap. Perhaps I'll have to raise the tax in the meantime without the comparable rent coming in because of the lease agreement you set, but I get your buildings at the end so that's basically become a mortgage.
Of course, that possibility could be removed by a rule like having a period where a lease is in the offing where prospective buyers can buy and cancel the lease, punishing those setting low rates.
Your calculations are moot.