3 ms·
The path is a bit roundabout but it makes sense. The point is to make underutilized land uneconomical to keep that way. Landowners can no longer just sit on la
by infogulch 10y ago
The path is a bit roundabout but it makes sense.
The point is to make underutilized land uneconomical to keep that way. Landowners can no longer just sit on land that's not generating revenue. To generate revenue they will build more housing. The economics of supply and demand with additional supply will make housing cheaper more than additional taxes passed on to tenants will make it more expensive.
- Jtsummers 10y agoBut the article's proposal is summed up here: Income from land is thus completely unearned and thus any income gained from land ownership should be completely taxed at 100%. Taxing income from land, not land itself, based on some formula to determine it's value. This wouldn't cause unutilized land to be used, because it would have no taxes (other than base property taxes), but renting it out, for instance, would net you nothing. And if you can't sell it for a decent amount, or utilize it yourself (which the essay isn't clear, would income from a farm also be taxed?) you might as well leave it empty until the property taxes (if you kept them in this scheme) became overwhelming.
- pavel_lishin 10y agoThat's not his proposal being summed up, that's the problem summed up. > you might as well leave it empty until the property taxes (if you kept them in this scheme) became overwhelming. I believe he's proposing increasing property taxes until they're 100% (though I'm not sure what this means; you basically have to pay to purchase the land every year?)