4 ms·

Can you remind me what this has to do with land value tax? Also prop 13 is much more than just a proposition for seniors. It will maybe help the first couple ge

Can you remind me what this has to do with land value tax? Also prop 13 is much more than just a proposition for seniors. It will maybe help the first couple generations of seniors, but it also allows property owning funds to secure low taxes in perpetuity My original point is that if you want to own land forever without “the neighborhood changing”, don’t buy a plot in a city or suburban area. You have no right to enjoy the benefits of living in a city while forcing everyone else to respect your rights of a homesteader on a ranch in unincorporated land. People had to deal with rising property prices and change to make the city a desirable place to live, but as soon as you get property all you can think of is keeping everything just the way it is. That’s why it’s selfish.

watwut 8y ago
If my tax goes up whenever people are buying nearby lands, then it is effectively forcing people who own existing houses out. That is the senior scenario, through I am fine with young couple that owns house not being forced away just because others people want in too. You have zero right to demand that neighborhood dont change - nearby land owners should be free to do as they please. Rising property prices is what incentivizes current people to sell to new people. Or maybe build higher building so that they sell to more people. That is dealing with it. Not raising taxes for existing people so that we can push them out while keeping total amount of people in area the same. All you want is to change who lives there - not to add new people or build higher houses. America has tons of space. Businesses could move had they wanted to, houses could be build had people did not seen urban living as oh-my-god-end-of-world.
- snidane 8y ago
  Land rights are not free. Landowner has to convince other people that he can occupy his land. How? He pays a fee proportional to his land's market value so that others don't squat there. Now this fee is just named Land Value Tax for convenience despite it not being a tax. This would be the ethically fair system. Of course in the present world the landowner class successfully lobbied that the fees are subsidized by other people from their income and similar taxes. There you have an explanation of the perpetual housing boom, because it is highly subsidized investment and there is only so much of it. This doesn't apply just for land but for anything life necessary which can't be easily created anew. If someone poisoned 90% of water on earth you'd have the same thing.
  - watwut 8y ago
    Frankly, that sounds like a motivated reasoning. It just seems that everything is about property rights and market, until it is inconvenient in which case tax is set up so that people who are not you leave, because you want their place. And you still did not made place for more people. Just changed who is living there. They dont matter, you do.
    - opportune 8y ago
      You can’t begin to build apartments where there’s currently a house until the person living there sells...

watwut 8y ago

If my tax goes up whenever people are buying nearby lands, then it is effectively forcing people who own existing houses out. That is the senior scenario, through I am fine with young couple that owns house not being forced away just because others people want in too. You have zero right to demand that neighborhood dont change - nearby land owners should be free to do as they please. Rising property prices is what incentivizes current people to sell to new people. Or maybe build higher building so that they sell to more people. That is dealing with it. Not raising taxes for existing people so that we can push them out while keeping total amount of people in area the same. All you want is to change who lives there - not to add new people or build higher houses. America has tons of space. Businesses could move had they wanted to, houses could be build had people did not seen urban living as oh-my-god-end-of-world.

snidane 8y ago
Land rights are not free. Landowner has to convince other people that he can occupy his land. How? He pays a fee proportional to his land's market value so that others don't squat there. Now this fee is just named Land Value Tax for convenience despite it not being a tax. This would be the ethically fair system. Of course in the present world the landowner class successfully lobbied that the fees are subsidized by other people from their income and similar taxes. There you have an explanation of the perpetual housing boom, because it is highly subsidized investment and there is only so much of it. This doesn't apply just for land but for anything life necessary which can't be easily created anew. If someone poisoned 90% of water on earth you'd have the same thing.
- watwut 8y ago
  Frankly, that sounds like a motivated reasoning. It just seems that everything is about property rights and market, until it is inconvenient in which case tax is set up so that people who are not you leave, because you want their place. And you still did not made place for more people. Just changed who is living there. They dont matter, you do.
  - opportune 8y ago
    You can’t begin to build apartments where there’s currently a house until the person living there sells...