3 ms·

What is the methodology that concluded increased land taxes lower land costs?

by IncRnd 9y ago

jjoonathan 9y ago
Reducing the attractiveness of land-the-speculation-and-investment-instrument increases the supply of land-for-living.
- smokeyj 9y ago
  Except you don't know which land should be "for living", and which should be barren swamp land. If this were applied city-wide, there would be many owners of less than developable land getting taxed higher for no reason. If you draw a specific territory of land that should be taxed higher, then you're essentially singling out specific property owners. Might as well use eminent domain at that point. People who come up with these crazy ideas seem to not have a solid grasp of supply and demand. The supply of land is not the problem. The supply of buildings is not the problem. The supply of competent municipalities that can sustain high density living is the problem. The solution to lowering the cost city living is to increase the supply of cities. New ones, without the political baggage we have now. High density, modular, mass produced. If we're not talking about mass production, we're just rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.
- IncRnd 9y ago
  That's one train of thought, but LVTs are also rarely used. There's a reason for that, too. The view you related may hold where there are caps on rental increases, but why would that hold anywhere else? In other words, what is the mechanism that forces a landlord to absorb the tax increase? If a-particular-piece-of-land is to be transitioned from land-the-speculation-and-investment-instrument to land-for-living, then the increase from taxation will already be included in the base rental rate. Unless, the argument is that everyone is poor, so the landowner will not pass the tax onto renters. But, dependence upon large numbers of poor people is an odd way to structure places for renters to live. Continuing with the same economics as what you posted: once some pieces of land are transitioned to land-for-living, then demand will increase for land-the-speculation-and-investment-instrument. Supply and demand isn't static. It fluctuates. If the true goal is to have a place for people to live, then it is far cheaper for people if the government just rezones the area, assuming their employer didn't just lose a building.

What is the methodology that concluded increased land taxes lower land costs?

by IncRnd 9y ago

What is the methodology that concluded increased land taxes lower land costs?

jjoonathan 9y ago

Reducing the attractiveness of land-the-speculation-and-investment-instrument increases the supply of land-for-living.

smokeyj 9y ago
Except you don't know which land should be "for living", and which should be barren swamp land. If this were applied city-wide, there would be many owners of less than developable land getting taxed higher for no reason. If you draw a specific territory of land that should be taxed higher, then you're essentially singling out specific property owners. Might as well use eminent domain at that point. People who come up with these crazy ideas seem to not have a solid grasp of supply and demand. The supply of land is not the problem. The supply of buildings is not the problem. The supply of competent municipalities that can sustain high density living is the problem. The solution to lowering the cost city living is to increase the supply of cities. New ones, without the political baggage we have now. High density, modular, mass produced. If we're not talking about mass production, we're just rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.
IncRnd 9y ago
That's one train of thought, but LVTs are also rarely used. There's a reason for that, too. The view you related may hold where there are caps on rental increases, but why would that hold anywhere else? In other words, what is the mechanism that forces a landlord to absorb the tax increase? If a-particular-piece-of-land is to be transitioned from land-the-speculation-and-investment-instrument to land-for-living, then the increase from taxation will already be included in the base rental rate. Unless, the argument is that everyone is poor, so the landowner will not pass the tax onto renters. But, dependence upon large numbers of poor people is an odd way to structure places for renters to live. Continuing with the same economics as what you posted: once some pieces of land are transitioned to land-for-living, then demand will increase for land-the-speculation-and-investment-instrument. Supply and demand isn't static. It fluctuates. If the true goal is to have a place for people to live, then it is far cheaper for people if the government just rezones the area, assuming their employer didn't just lose a building.