3 ms·

This is a simplistic analysis of the situation with some misconceptions. Landowners supply land, one of the key inputs to the economy. It is part of the capita

This is a simplistic analysis of the situation with some misconceptions. Landowners supply land, one of the key inputs to the economy. It is part of the capital behind almost all economic activity. Trying running a business - or even living - without using at least some real estate. This is a very fundamental economic misconception. Landowners don’t support zoning restrictions on their own land. And while many support zoning restrictions generally so do non-landowners (see surveys on the issue). Plus landowners are a minority of voters in the areas with the most restrictive zoning like SF and NYC. Taxing landowners as if they control their own zoning would distort incentives in bizarre ways. They are already bearing the costs of not being able to fully develop their property. (A negative tax might make more sense!?) IMHO the core problem is granting local politicians strong powers over zoning because they can gain both support and contributions (legal & illegal) by manipulation zoning. Their powers need to be limited by strong property rights (like in some parts of TX). A secondary issue in economic and financial illiteracy. There are so many misconceptions about this issue that people often act against their own interests. Unfortunately I have to agree it is unlikely to get better soon but there are some hopeful developments.

pmoriarty 7y ago
"Landowners supply land, one of the key inputs to the economy." Landowners don't supply land. That land is there whether these owners exist or not, and regardless of what they do or don't do. Now, there is a system built up around denying access to land to anyone who doesn't own it or has the owner's permission, but that's a far cry from actually supplying land. Contrast this to a baker who bakes bread. Without him that bread would not exist, so he actually does provide a service of supplying bread. Not so with the landowner, who creates nothing and whose ownership is a legal fiction.
- spikels 7y ago
  Physics dictate that only one factory/office/home/bakery can occupy a particular location. So without the particular land for that particular bakery the bread wouldn’t exist either. People get all confused about basic economics, particularly real estate economics. In most ways land is no different than other physical inputs in that they are “exclusive”. You can’t use the same wheat in two different loaves of bread are the same time either. And the same baker can’t work in two different bakeries at the same time. The key thing that makes land different from other economic inputs is that it is immobile. This has many interesting implications but doesn’t make land useless or require a particular ownership system. Sure you could imagine a different world with different legal system but that wouldn’t change the fact that land is needed for almost every economic activity and is thus valuable. So whoever decides who get to use (i.e. supplies) that land - let’s call them the landowner - is adding value to that economic activity. Similar discussions around intangible assets are even more confusing.
  - pmoriarty 7y ago
    "So whoever decides who get to use (i.e. supplies) that land - let's call them the landowner - is adding value to that economic activity." The ones who decide what to do with land need not be their owner. See the practice of eminent domain, public lands, and non-capitalist economic systems. Allowing the concentration of ownership in to a relatively few hands at the expense of the many has been an absolute disaster for the overwhelming majority of the population.
ZhuanXia 7y ago
See the other reply for the Georgist critique of land ownership. >Taxing landowners as if they control their own zoning would distort incentives in bizarre ways. They are already bearing the costs of not being able to fully develop their property. (A negative tax might make more sense!?) I think you will find the majority of people who vote in municipal elections are home owners. The policy would cause zoning restrictions to increase their tax bill. Very quickly, I think we would find zoning laws would change. The real reason this policy is naive is it would be very difficult to actually get an accurate estimate of the counterfactual price.

pmoriarty 7y ago

"Landowners supply land, one of the key inputs to the economy." Landowners don't supply land. That land is there whether these owners exist or not, and regardless of what they do or don't do. Now, there is a system built up around denying access to land to anyone who doesn't own it or has the owner's permission, but that's a far cry from actually supplying land. Contrast this to a baker who bakes bread. Without him that bread would not exist, so he actually does provide a service of supplying bread. Not so with the landowner, who creates nothing and whose ownership is a legal fiction.

spikels 7y ago
Physics dictate that only one factory/office/home/bakery can occupy a particular location. So without the particular land for that particular bakery the bread wouldn’t exist either. People get all confused about basic economics, particularly real estate economics. In most ways land is no different than other physical inputs in that they are “exclusive”. You can’t use the same wheat in two different loaves of bread are the same time either. And the same baker can’t work in two different bakeries at the same time. The key thing that makes land different from other economic inputs is that it is immobile. This has many interesting implications but doesn’t make land useless or require a particular ownership system. Sure you could imagine a different world with different legal system but that wouldn’t change the fact that land is needed for almost every economic activity and is thus valuable. So whoever decides who get to use (i.e. supplies) that land - let’s call them the landowner - is adding value to that economic activity. Similar discussions around intangible assets are even more confusing.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  "So whoever decides who get to use (i.e. supplies) that land - let's call them the landowner - is adding value to that economic activity." The ones who decide what to do with land need not be their owner. See the practice of eminent domain, public lands, and non-capitalist economic systems. Allowing the concentration of ownership in to a relatively few hands at the expense of the many has been an absolute disaster for the overwhelming majority of the population.

ZhuanXia 7y ago

See the other reply for the Georgist critique of land ownership. >Taxing landowners as if they control their own zoning would distort incentives in bizarre ways. They are already bearing the costs of not being able to fully develop their property. (A negative tax might make more sense!?) I think you will find the majority of people who vote in municipal elections are home owners. The policy would cause zoning restrictions to increase their tax bill. Very quickly, I think we would find zoning laws would change. The real reason this policy is naive is it would be very difficult to actually get an accurate estimate of the counterfactual price.