3 ms·
We should consider a 75% capital gains rate on land value increases. After all, the owner typically had little effect on their own land value. A big effect come
by lostdog 7y ago
We should consider a 75% capital gains rate on land value increases. After all, the owner typically had little effect on their own land value. A big effect comes from their neighbors building shops and offices and the biggest effect comes from the city building roads and transit and other infrastructure. Land "investment" is the least productive form of investment. If you built a building, then yes, profit from that, but benefits from increases in land value should go to the city.
- nielsole 7y agoThe georgist approach. I was pondering a high annual ground tax instead of a capital gains tax
- username444 7y agoOtherwise known as "property tax". Something neat I've noticed locally is that condos with high property management fees have proportionally lower selling prices. If all 2 bedroom units in an area/city are $3000/month and one building had property management fees of $1000 instead of $500, the unit's value is $500/month lower (approx. $100,000 selling price). I'm not sure how that would be implemented on a city scale though. For density: If you drastically raise property taxes to be proportional to square footage instead of appraised value, you instantly incentivize higher density building. If you're paying $1000 tax per square foot of ground floor, you can spread that over a single floor, or 40 floors. Was that your thought?
- nielsole 7y agoYes. But The tax needs to be high enough to capture most of the value not created by the landlord. As I am no property owner I am not too deep into this, but right now I think we are far from that. Property tax is just now being redone in Germany. Unfortunately it seems that it might end up depending on the square meters of the house, not the underlying property.