3 ms·
Except that like everywhere else on the globe that isn't Antarctica there were already people there that needed to be displaced. Someone else's asset was stolen
by Tsagadai 11y ago
Except that like everywhere else on the globe that isn't Antarctica there were already people there that needed to be displaced. Someone else's asset was stolen and sold (for very little initially, but sold nonetheless). Land (in absolute terms) has little to do with property prices compared to where the land is geographically, politically and socially.
Land tax will help marginally with inequity but the majority of the cost will just be passed on to renters (like what happens now). Taxing vacant buildings higher will increase supply which should depress rents slightly. None of that stops housing becoming an investment and a financial asset though which is the root cause of unaffordability.
- branchless 11y agoLVT is set by location. Property prices are set by location. LVT can't be passed onto renters. It does stop land speculation. It's the opposite of what you say. If LVT could be passed onto renters then why, given the market can apparently bear higher prices, are our genius landlords not charging us more already? That's how prices are set my friend, they don't sum up the input costs and add 5% profit.