4 ms·

Usually the alternative is that the money from building rent is just going into the pocket of some real estate company. So it’s kinda like a big tax on real est

by rtpg 8y ago

Usually the alternative is that the money from building rent is just going into the pocket of some real estate company. So it’s kinda like a big tax on real estate companies (which sounds like a hell of a good policy to me. Rent seekers and all that)

avar 8y ago
Then just tax that. Effectively giving public transport the ability to collect taxes in small pockets of your land around public transport stations seems like an odd way to go about it. You could similarly run the police at a profit instead of being a cost center by gifting 100 hectares around every police station to the police, and have them collect rent on it. That doesn't make sense either. For one, it creates a perverse incentive where the government can't let property prices fall for the common good least their public transport (or police) services would go out of business. Hong Kong famously has a problem with this. It's a relatively low-tax regime with absurdly high housing prices, because they raise a much larger part of their revenue by taxing land than most other similarly developed areas.
- casual_slacker 8y ago
  Taxing real estate at large causes a supply-side pressure, driving up market prices. If you only "tax" very specific land around a train station, you limit the effect on the greater market. In theory a government could pass such location-specific tax law, but I've only see that done via property taxes.
  - zozbot123 8y ago
    > Taxing real estate at large causes a supply-side pressure, driving up market prices. Not if you tax the value of ground rent only. If anything, the effect goes the other way, as owners are incented to put their underused properties on the market. (And yes, taxing ground rent only in some relative small areas e.g. around a station may introduce distortionary incentives. But in general, shifting taxation towards land improves the incentive for good government, especially provision of local amenities.)
- lmm 8y ago
  Many economists see land value tax as a "perfect tax" that has none of the bad incentives of other tax regimes.
- rtpg 8y ago
  The advantage is that by doing this you are only taxing people in opportunity cost and it’s only affecting a small area There is also strong synergy between the trains and the area immediately around it. Also you have to buy the land anyways for the station. Don’t think that argument holds as strongly to police statins

by rtpg 8y ago

avar 8y ago

Then just tax that. Effectively giving public transport the ability to collect taxes in small pockets of your land around public transport stations seems like an odd way to go about it. You could similarly run the police at a profit instead of being a cost center by gifting 100 hectares around every police station to the police, and have them collect rent on it. That doesn't make sense either. For one, it creates a perverse incentive where the government can't let property prices fall for the common good least their public transport (or police) services would go out of business. Hong Kong famously has a problem with this. It's a relatively low-tax regime with absurdly high housing prices, because they raise a much larger part of their revenue by taxing land than most other similarly developed areas.

casual_slacker 8y ago
Taxing real estate at large causes a supply-side pressure, driving up market prices. If you only "tax" very specific land around a train station, you limit the effect on the greater market. In theory a government could pass such location-specific tax law, but I've only see that done via property taxes.
- zozbot123 8y ago
  > Taxing real estate at large causes a supply-side pressure, driving up market prices. Not if you tax the value of ground rent only. If anything, the effect goes the other way, as owners are incented to put their underused properties on the market. (And yes, taxing ground rent only in some relative small areas e.g. around a station may introduce distortionary incentives. But in general, shifting taxation towards land improves the incentive for good government, especially provision of local amenities.)
lmm 8y ago
Many economists see land value tax as a "perfect tax" that has none of the bad incentives of other tax regimes.
rtpg 8y ago
The advantage is that by doing this you are only taxing people in opportunity cost and it’s only affecting a small area There is also strong synergy between the trains and the area immediately around it. Also you have to buy the land anyways for the station. Don’t think that argument holds as strongly to police statins