3 ms·

More likely they would just reward themselves by making a hand wavy argument about how value isn't flowing to them like it should be in their idea of a rational

More likely they would just reward themselves by making a hand wavy argument about how value isn't flowing to them like it should be in their idea of a rational market and increase the tax. A land value tax would also put the onerous cost on citizens nearby and make rents and property cost even more. Then you would probably see a stream of subsides come in to support low income renters. It seems like it is a much more intrusive government solution with a lot of downside.

lmm 9y ago
> More likely they would just reward themselves by making a hand wavy argument about how value isn't flowing to them like it should be in their idea of a rational market and increase the tax. Well, no tax system is immune to people arbitrarily raising the tax rate. > A land value tax would also put the onerous cost on citizens nearby It means the costs are shared in proportion to the benefits rather than everyone in the city paying for improvements that only benefit one area. (And if the city builds a prison or incinerator in your backyard that harms your property value, then at least it lowers your taxes). > make rents and property cost even more It should lower the cost of property (since property now comes with a tax liability) and encourage putting land to productive use (i.e. building houses rather than "land-banking") or selling it to people who can use it, which would lower rents. What it penalizes is using property as an investment. (Land value tax is not just some random idea I came up with; it was advocated by Adam Smith, Ricardo and others. Look at the writings of Henry George, and look at SF property prices today and tell me he was wrong: gains in economic productivity are captured by the rentiers who own land rather than going to those who produced them).
crdoconnor 9y ago
>A land value tax would also put the onerous cost on citizens nearby and make rents and property cost even more. It would drag down property values because making owning something a liability strangely enough makes people want to own it less. Rents would probably go down as land that was previously hoarded unproductively would hit the market. Added to which city budgets would start overflowing with money which could be used to build additional housing for low income renters on land that has been yielded by hoarders. Land owners - especially people with generations of wealth - would go nuts, since their license to tax people for using their land will have been revoked.

lmm 9y ago

> More likely they would just reward themselves by making a hand wavy argument about how value isn't flowing to them like it should be in their idea of a rational market and increase the tax. Well, no tax system is immune to people arbitrarily raising the tax rate. > A land value tax would also put the onerous cost on citizens nearby It means the costs are shared in proportion to the benefits rather than everyone in the city paying for improvements that only benefit one area. (And if the city builds a prison or incinerator in your backyard that harms your property value, then at least it lowers your taxes). > make rents and property cost even more It should lower the cost of property (since property now comes with a tax liability) and encourage putting land to productive use (i.e. building houses rather than "land-banking") or selling it to people who can use it, which would lower rents. What it penalizes is using property as an investment. (Land value tax is not just some random idea I came up with; it was advocated by Adam Smith, Ricardo and others. Look at the writings of Henry George, and look at SF property prices today and tell me he was wrong: gains in economic productivity are captured by the rentiers who own land rather than going to those who produced them).

crdoconnor 9y ago

>A land value tax would also put the onerous cost on citizens nearby and make rents and property cost even more. It would drag down property values because making owning something a liability strangely enough makes people want to own it less. Rents would probably go down as land that was previously hoarded unproductively would hit the market. Added to which city budgets would start overflowing with money which could be used to build additional housing for low income renters on land that has been yielded by hoarders. Land owners - especially people with generations of wealth - would go nuts, since their license to tax people for using their land will have been revoked.