4 ms·

I think we should also be looking into progressive property/land taxes. Let's say everyone's first $100-200k in property is untaxed. Or you could make even more

I think we should also be looking into progressive property/land taxes. Let's say everyone's first $100-200k in property is untaxed. Or you could make even more brackets. Another problem is super dense developments not paying their fair share. A skyscraper's residents are using way more of the city's resources than the small building next door, but with the same footprint they are paying the city the same amount. I suppose this would have to be fixed with some kind of income tax.

virmundi 9y ago
On the skyscrapers, aren’t they using less resources per square foot?
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Per square foot of land? No, I don't think so. The 50-story building will have more police calls than the 10-story building of the same type. It will use more water and produce more sewage. It will have more cars in and out, which will have a greater impact on the roads. And so on.
  - virmundi 9y ago
    At this point all of the support infrastructure centralized? Police will more efficiently patrol an area. Sewer and water need to go to fewer hookups. As to cars, I guess more opportunities for thoughtful parking design to keep vehicles off the street?
- unabridged 9y ago
  The land is being used efficiently. But per person they are using nearly the same amount of police, fire, sanitation, roads, schools, ... All of which is currently funded by property tax. I feel the tax burden will end up shifting away from rich people who can afford to live in brand new very tall luxury condos.
  - klipt 9y ago
    If living in towers is more affordable than living in single family homes, what's to stop poor people from living in towers too? If anything, it should only be rich people who live in single family homes in the middle of dense cities, and they should pay taxes out the nose for the privilege.

4 ms·

I think we should also be looking into progressive property/land taxes. Let's say everyone's first $100-200k in property is untaxed. Or you could make even more

by unabridged 9y ago

virmundi 9y ago
On the skyscrapers, aren’t they using less resources per square foot?
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Per square foot of land? No, I don't think so. The 50-story building will have more police calls than the 10-story building of the same type. It will use more water and produce more sewage. It will have more cars in and out, which will have a greater impact on the roads. And so on.
  - virmundi 9y ago
    At this point all of the support infrastructure centralized? Police will more efficiently patrol an area. Sewer and water need to go to fewer hookups. As to cars, I guess more opportunities for thoughtful parking design to keep vehicles off the street?
- unabridged 9y ago
  The land is being used efficiently. But per person they are using nearly the same amount of police, fire, sanitation, roads, schools, ... All of which is currently funded by property tax. I feel the tax burden will end up shifting away from rich people who can afford to live in brand new very tall luxury condos.
  - klipt 9y ago
    If living in towers is more affordable than living in single family homes, what's to stop poor people from living in towers too? If anything, it should only be rich people who live in single family homes in the middle of dense cities, and they should pay taxes out the nose for the privilege.