3 ms·

> Now,if every housing unit (not property) were assessed a $2600/mo tax, would that drive sale prices down? Maybe. Would it drive up incomes and make businesses

> Now,if every housing unit (not property) were assessed a $2600/mo tax, would that drive sale prices down? Maybe. Would it drive up incomes and make businesses thrive? Well, it would increase the income of people living in SF (excluding the homeless) by driving lower income people out even more than the status quo does. But it wouldn't cause incomes for the same people to rise. But, also, that's not a land tax. You are correct, incidence is not the same of property vs land. Land is preferrable becuase the 2mill single family hosuehold that takes the same space than the 5 mill 9 unit apt gets more tax benefits. You also have the added difficulty that prop taxes are capped. But land taxes aren't. In any case, shifting the burden from consumers, workers and businesses to landlords will inevitable drop the propery values enormously, regardless of the tax scheme implemented. They are today tax-positive. Even if you only do half the tax burden, it would be enough change incentives profoundly.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> You also have the added difficulty that prop taxes are capped. But land taxes aren't. I don't think California allows local governments to raise land taxes (it allows parcel taxes, that are apportioned on a flat per-parcel basis, but that's obviously not the same as a land tax.) > In any case, shifting the burden from consumers, workers and businesses to landlords ...won't happen. The consumers and businesses that rent property (and the workers employed by businesses and whose sustainable potential pay is limited by other costs the employer has to pay to operate) will still bear the burden of the taxes, even if they are directly levied on property owners.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  I don't know the details, but im sure that if there is a will, there is a way. You can call it a garbage tax, a homeless tax, a hipster tax. The obstacle is political, the same that voted prop 13. > ..won't happen. The consumers and businesses that rent property (and the workers employed by businesses and whose sustainable potential pay is limited by other costs the employer has to pay to operate) will still bear the burden of the taxes, even if they are directly levied on property owners. I disagree, this is not what economic theory implies with tax incidence, LVT, etc.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> You also have the added difficulty that prop taxes are capped. But land taxes aren't. I don't think California allows local governments to raise land taxes (it allows parcel taxes, that are apportioned on a flat per-parcel basis, but that's obviously not the same as a land tax.) > In any case, shifting the burden from consumers, workers and businesses to landlords ...won't happen. The consumers and businesses that rent property (and the workers employed by businesses and whose sustainable potential pay is limited by other costs the employer has to pay to operate) will still bear the burden of the taxes, even if they are directly levied on property owners.

conanbatt 8y ago
I don't know the details, but im sure that if there is a will, there is a way. You can call it a garbage tax, a homeless tax, a hipster tax. The obstacle is political, the same that voted prop 13. > ..won't happen. The consumers and businesses that rent property (and the workers employed by businesses and whose sustainable potential pay is limited by other costs the employer has to pay to operate) will still bear the burden of the taxes, even if they are directly levied on property owners. I disagree, this is not what economic theory implies with tax incidence, LVT, etc.