4 ms·

The way I see, to care for vacant property, you need police, roads, and a ton of infrastructure. This is also needed for property that is used. A non-vacant us

The way I see, to care for vacant property, you need police, roads, and a ton of infrastructure. This is also needed for property that is used. A non-vacant used property will provide a city with money in the form of sales taxes, jobs, growth, fees and in general prosperity. A town with a ton of small independently owned shops and restaurants (a side effect of forcing property on the market) is more attractive than one with strip malls filled with franchises. It will make people want to live there and drive prices up. Why should a vacant property pay the same tax? It's taking up the same and paying less, in fact, in many cases, the vacant property is pulling down the value of the city. It's only fair for the vacant property owner to have to pay to blight his community. Such an arrangement is dealing with externalized costs, which is one of the best functions of government.

akincisor 7y ago
Does this same logic apply to promote a Wealth Tax on people who have wealth that's being hoarded?
- a1369209993 7y ago
  Assuming you're talking about money, actually no. Money doesn't have any associated geometry or topology, ie one bit of money, unlike land, is pretty much equivalent to another. It would be like "hoarding" a bunch of land in the middle of nowhere: only a problem if you're taking up a significant fraction of the global supply.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  Nope. You hoarding wealth won't make the neighborhood less appealing. The hoarder is not free loading. New wealth can be created, we don't need yours. If your investment real estate is contributing $1/square foot in property taxes but everyone else's occupied property is contributing $5/square foot in wages, sales tax, property tax and municipal fees... then it makes sense to charge the free loaders. This isn't even dealing with the blight and community development points. Just from a financial perspective it makes sense.
RaceWon 7y ago
> The way I see, to care for vacant property, The way I see it; an added tax will just be an encumbrance on the budding entrepreneur, who worked two jobs, and begged to get the financing on that property. She has dreams, passion and a vision--she rolled the dice and will be bankrupt if she doesn't execute and have a bit of luck. > which is one of the best functions of government In a free society, perhaps the best function of government (which is nothing more than a random collection of random people) is to be as invisible as possible, and not to try to ram their (here again--this random collection of random people) agenda down everyone else's throat, every single chance they get.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  Sorry if where you live they are random. Where I live they are elected. And while I feel for the entrepreneur, this type of tax won't affect them if they lease it out. There is no way for everyone to be happy. Needs have to be prioritized (like the need of the city to be prosperous over the need of the landlord to squeeze a few more cents out of a place)
  - RaceWon 7y ago
    > Where I live they are elected Random people run for office and random people are elected. Some of these random folks Are even qualified for the posts they hold. > this type of tax won't affect them if they lease it out. That is simply not true. In your scenario my mythical entrepreneur has no choice, she can't afford to not lease it out to the lowest bidder. > like the need of the city to be prosperous over the need of the landlord to squeeze a few more cents out of a place You seem to have a bit of disdain for business owners and complete faith in your elected officials. My point of view is totally the opposite--it's the business owner's money, Not your elected random peeps money. Furthermore, do you think the business owner fervently desires her property be locted in a prosperous city--of course she does, but that doesn't mean she wants incompetent people who are smooth talking just wasting it.
    - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago

akincisor 7y ago

Does this same logic apply to promote a Wealth Tax on people who have wealth that's being hoarded?

a1369209993 7y ago
Assuming you're talking about money, actually no. Money doesn't have any associated geometry or topology, ie one bit of money, unlike land, is pretty much equivalent to another. It would be like "hoarding" a bunch of land in the middle of nowhere: only a problem if you're taking up a significant fraction of the global supply.
4ntonius8lock 7y ago
Nope. You hoarding wealth won't make the neighborhood less appealing. The hoarder is not free loading. New wealth can be created, we don't need yours. If your investment real estate is contributing $1/square foot in property taxes but everyone else's occupied property is contributing $5/square foot in wages, sales tax, property tax and municipal fees... then it makes sense to charge the free loaders. This isn't even dealing with the blight and community development points. Just from a financial perspective it makes sense.

RaceWon 7y ago

> The way I see, to care for vacant property, The way I see it; an added tax will just be an encumbrance on the budding entrepreneur, who worked two jobs, and begged to get the financing on that property. She has dreams, passion and a vision--she rolled the dice and will be bankrupt if she doesn't execute and have a bit of luck. > which is one of the best functions of government In a free society, perhaps the best function of government (which is nothing more than a random collection of random people) is to be as invisible as possible, and not to try to ram their (here again--this random collection of random people) agenda down everyone else's throat, every single chance they get.

4ntonius8lock 7y ago
Sorry if where you live they are random. Where I live they are elected. And while I feel for the entrepreneur, this type of tax won't affect them if they lease it out. There is no way for everyone to be happy. Needs have to be prioritized (like the need of the city to be prosperous over the need of the landlord to squeeze a few more cents out of a place)
- RaceWon 7y ago
  > Where I live they are elected Random people run for office and random people are elected. Some of these random folks Are even qualified for the posts they hold. > this type of tax won't affect them if they lease it out. That is simply not true. In your scenario my mythical entrepreneur has no choice, she can't afford to not lease it out to the lowest bidder. > like the need of the city to be prosperous over the need of the landlord to squeeze a few more cents out of a place You seem to have a bit of disdain for business owners and complete faith in your elected officials. My point of view is totally the opposite--it's the business owner's money, Not your elected random peeps money. Furthermore, do you think the business owner fervently desires her property be locted in a prosperous city--of course she does, but that doesn't mean she wants incompetent people who are smooth talking just wasting it.
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago