4 ms·

It is, its called property tax.

damnyou 9y ago
You can break up American-style property taxes into two components: 1. A tax on the unimproved value of land, also called a land value tax. 2. A tax on improvements (buildings etc). Currently the rate of tax 1 (LVT) is the same as the rate of tax 2. The assertion here is that it would be better for society if tax 1 were higher than tax 2, or even that tax 2 is zero and tax 1 is raised accordingly.
- strictnein 9y ago
  If thats the case I feel like most of the people supporting this don't live outside of urban settings. Getting rid of #2 would be really harmful and would be an absolute gift to the upper classes. Or, if it didn't cut taxes for the wealthy, it would significantly raise taxes on a lot of the middle class, forcing them out of smaller homes in good school districts.
  - natrius 9y ago
    Housing is a generational issue. There's today's middle class and tomorrow's middle class. Raising taxes on land does not hurt tomorrow's middle class, and it helps them if more homes get built where they want to live. Land is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. Higher taxes mean the price of the land itself must be lower for people to buy it—the taxes don't cause wealthier people to suddenly show up. Today's middle class has lots of political power. Tomorrow's middle class doesn't. We're allowing generations to extract wealth from those who come after them without considering the consequences.
  - damnyou 9y ago
    "Good school districts" are a racist institution and should be destroyed post haste.
  - EddieRingle 9y ago
    I live in a small suburban city within the Little Rock metro area and have run the numbers before. You could replace income and sales taxes with a straight land value tax (also replacing the tax on improvements to the land) and a household's tax burden would be roughly the same, if not less. Granted, mine is just one sample point, but it was enough to keep me interested and wanting to see further (and better) studies done.
    - seanalltogether 9y ago
      The biggest problem I can spot with a solution like that is that it doesn't provide wiggle room for people that need to downscale rapidly. Say I lose my job and have to find something that pays half as much. With the current tax structure I can reduce spending and my income tax will automatically be lowered, so I can continue to afford my house. In an LVT only situation, I'm screwed.

You can break up American-style property taxes into two components: 1. A tax on the unimproved value of land, also called a land value tax. 2. A tax on improvements (buildings etc). Currently the rate of tax 1 (LVT) is the same as the rate of tax 2. The assertion here is that it would be better for society if tax 1 were higher than tax 2, or even that tax 2 is zero and tax 1 is raised accordingly.

strictnein 9y ago
If thats the case I feel like most of the people supporting this don't live outside of urban settings. Getting rid of #2 would be really harmful and would be an absolute gift to the upper classes. Or, if it didn't cut taxes for the wealthy, it would significantly raise taxes on a lot of the middle class, forcing them out of smaller homes in good school districts.
- natrius 9y ago
  Housing is a generational issue. There's today's middle class and tomorrow's middle class. Raising taxes on land does not hurt tomorrow's middle class, and it helps them if more homes get built where they want to live. Land is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. Higher taxes mean the price of the land itself must be lower for people to buy it—the taxes don't cause wealthier people to suddenly show up. Today's middle class has lots of political power. Tomorrow's middle class doesn't. We're allowing generations to extract wealth from those who come after them without considering the consequences.
- damnyou 9y ago
  "Good school districts" are a racist institution and should be destroyed post haste.
- EddieRingle 9y ago
  I live in a small suburban city within the Little Rock metro area and have run the numbers before. You could replace income and sales taxes with a straight land value tax (also replacing the tax on improvements to the land) and a household's tax burden would be roughly the same, if not less. Granted, mine is just one sample point, but it was enough to keep me interested and wanting to see further (and better) studies done.
  - seanalltogether 9y ago
    The biggest problem I can spot with a solution like that is that it doesn't provide wiggle room for people that need to downscale rapidly. Say I lose my job and have to find something that pays half as much. With the current tax structure I can reduce spending and my income tax will automatically be lowered, so I can continue to afford my house. In an LVT only situation, I'm screwed.