5 ms·
Taxation based on the value of the edifice is such a dumb idea it could only have come from the government. It does precisely what this article says, disincent
by huffmsa 8y ago
Taxation based on the value of the edifice is such a dumb idea it could only have come from the government.
It does precisely what this article says, disincentives improvements, because "the government" is just going to take more of your money.
Seems illegal to boot (although I imagine there's plenty of precedent).
Taxing the land at least has some logic to it. "This land is serviced by this government, you pay for those services".
As well having a high land tax means you're going to build high revenue generating structures to meet your burden.
- smadge 8y agoSome form of property tax has been around since the feudal era and the idea of a land value tax has been around in western economics since the 1700s.
- yason 8y agoThere should also be a portion of the land tax that comes from the relevant part of the city-owned road network which needs maintenance. Buying a lot in the suburbs which necessitates massive highways and arterials built and maintained should have that factored in the land tax to balance the gap between suburbs and downtown. In the downtown your land tax would be higher because of demand of lots and higher land value, and in the suburbs it would be higher because of higher per-lot costs to the city.
- tchaffee 8y agoIt's not just the land that is serviced though. Aren't the infrastructure and service needs (fire department for example) different for no building vs. a one story building vs. a forty story building?
- rocqua 8y agoPerhaps, but thats an argument for occupancy based tax, not building-value based tax.
- tchaffee 8y agoHow so? An empty 40 story building surely takes a larger fire department and more sophisticated city planning than an fully occupied one story average house?
- huffmsa 8y agoThat should be covered in the land zoning code. Land where you're allowed to build a 40 story building should be more valuable than one where you can only build single story. As well, the taxes on sales in the increased number of stores / sales of leases / income tax revenue from the increased number of residents should cover the increase in service costs. If they don't, you're not running an efficient government. (Ha. Efficient government).
- tchaffee 8y agoSo if I want to maintain a one story building on land that is zoned for a 40 story building, I have to pay extra taxes even though I'm not using extra services? Seems to me like the best policy would be taking both into consideration.
- huffmsa 8y agoYou're thinking like an academic in a glass tower and not a real human. You wouldn't buy the property unless you had plans to develop it into something. Unless you're the kind of fool who buys 128gb RAM and only uses 4gb of it. The price of an item should reflect it's use and probable ROI.
- tchaffee 8y agoI own and develop property. Who looks like the fool now? Please keep it civil. Hacker News is not the place for put downs, two of which you've included in your short response.
- zeveb 8y agoYes, because that's the land's actual value. This is why land-value taxes are unpopular: small landowners (e.g. Mom & Dad) want to be able to hold onto their small single-family homes instead of being forced to sell to a developer who would build a multi-family dwelling. Cf. Prop 13 in California.
- tchaffee 8y ago