3 ms·

Most of these have to do with inefficient use of land, and ultimately can be aided with the big kahuna of fixes: a land value tax.[0] It would work to push back

Most of these have to do with inefficient use of land, and ultimately can be aided with the big kahuna of fixes: a land value tax.[0] It would work to push back against restrictive zoning policies (holding costs of land go up), and would create a virtuous cycle of land values being invested back into local infrastructure, resulting in higher land values (you can get transit for free). Donald Shoup (the author of "The High Price of Free Parking", namechecked below), has written extensively about how LVT would improve urban land use, as has Chuck Marohn (of Strong Towns, whose "Growth Ponzi Scheme" is namechecked below.) In fact, few things seem to have a stronger consensus than LVT among economists and urban planners. Then why don't we have it? In short, it shows the limitation of Pareto Optimality―to enact a LVT, the returns to landowners would be limited, which creates a very active special interest. Sob stories result when land is used more efficiently―people are generally moved by tales of the Old Poor Widow who can't possibly consider moving out of her ranch house that she's lived in for 40 years. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

to3m 10y ago
UK-focused blog with rebuttals for many common anti-LVT arguments: http://kaalvtn.blogspot.co.uk/ http://kaalvtn.blogspot.co.uk/ The author is an advocate for (as I recall?) having LVT replace at least CGT, income tax, national insurance, corporation tax, and, especially, VAT.
jobu 10y ago
Wouldn't that create some incentive to move further out into the suburbs or rural areas to avoid taxes?
- bufordsharkley 10y ago
  It creates a trade-off between living in high-infrastructure areas (cities) and paying for the infrastructure directly or indirectly through your taxes, or living in low-infrastructure areas (rural) and saving on your taxes. A related question is―why do we so frequently build new development out on the edge of a city (sprawl), and why do we so rarely build up development in the heart of a city (infill)? The latter would seem wiser, as the city already has an infrastructure system to build upon. Why don't we do this, instead choosing to bring the infrastructure out to where it isn't? The answer is related to the lack of a LVT―it's cheaper to consume marginal land for near-free and improve it than to utilize supermarginal land to its highest use, due to the return that landowners expect for it. (For an extreme example, consider why Walt Disney chose to buy swampland in Florida rather than expand his development in Anaheim.) The same payment to landowners is what prevents the extension of public transit: the government may invest in this infrastructure, but the benefits go to land values near the improvements. Stiglitz formalized this effect in the 1970s[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem
rspeer 10y ago
The problem with the prototypical Old Poor Widow (she lives in a million-dollar home in an excellent neighborhood, how sad) is that she votes in every local election. The people who benefit from density -- the young, the renters -- don't vote. Well, they vote every four years in the high-drama national electoral-college reality show, but that doesn't matter. And the people working service jobs who have to commute in from far away couldn't vote for local candidates who would benefit their interests even if they wanted to, because of course they don't live there. Politicians know that if they enact a land value tax, the elderly who lucked into amazing homes will vote them out of office. This won't change unless renters start voting for their interests.
- tmccrmck 10y ago
  Well, how do we get the young to vote in every election? How do we get the 25 year old barista to care about their community when they've been transient since they were 18? And I mean consistently, not just every four years. Among my peers there was so much political activity in the weeks after the national election. Unfortunately, it's already slowed down to a trickle after everyone has outrage fatigue. None of my friends want to even mention politics at this point.

to3m 10y ago

UK-focused blog with rebuttals for many common anti-LVT arguments: http://kaalvtn.blogspot.co.uk/ http://kaalvtn.blogspot.co.uk/ The author is an advocate for (as I recall?) having LVT replace at least CGT, income tax, national insurance, corporation tax, and, especially, VAT.

jobu 10y ago

Wouldn't that create some incentive to move further out into the suburbs or rural areas to avoid taxes?

bufordsharkley 10y ago
It creates a trade-off between living in high-infrastructure areas (cities) and paying for the infrastructure directly or indirectly through your taxes, or living in low-infrastructure areas (rural) and saving on your taxes. A related question is―why do we so frequently build new development out on the edge of a city (sprawl), and why do we so rarely build up development in the heart of a city (infill)? The latter would seem wiser, as the city already has an infrastructure system to build upon. Why don't we do this, instead choosing to bring the infrastructure out to where it isn't? The answer is related to the lack of a LVT―it's cheaper to consume marginal land for near-free and improve it than to utilize supermarginal land to its highest use, due to the return that landowners expect for it. (For an extreme example, consider why Walt Disney chose to buy swampland in Florida rather than expand his development in Anaheim.) The same payment to landowners is what prevents the extension of public transit: the government may invest in this infrastructure, but the benefits go to land values near the improvements. Stiglitz formalized this effect in the 1970s[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem

rspeer 10y ago

The problem with the prototypical Old Poor Widow (she lives in a million-dollar home in an excellent neighborhood, how sad) is that she votes in every local election. The people who benefit from density -- the young, the renters -- don't vote. Well, they vote every four years in the high-drama national electoral-college reality show, but that doesn't matter. And the people working service jobs who have to commute in from far away couldn't vote for local candidates who would benefit their interests even if they wanted to, because of course they don't live there. Politicians know that if they enact a land value tax, the elderly who lucked into amazing homes will vote them out of office. This won't change unless renters start voting for their interests.

tmccrmck 10y ago
Well, how do we get the young to vote in every election? How do we get the 25 year old barista to care about their community when they've been transient since they were 18? And I mean consistently, not just every four years. Among my peers there was so much political activity in the weeks after the national election. Unfortunately, it's already slowed down to a trickle after everyone has outrage fatigue. None of my friends want to even mention politics at this point.