3 ms·
The article is about land trusts in general, not just the one in the headline. Regardless, the correct solution is to implement LVT. Without that, almost by def
by ikeboy 7y ago
The article is about land trusts in general, not just the one in the headline. Regardless, the correct solution is to implement LVT. Without that, almost by definition market prices will be higher than they should be.
The market failure is the government permitting people to buy and sell land. A small trust buying up some land and taking it off the market doesn't fix the underlying failure.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoAnd like a carbon tax, a land value tax will never be implemented in the US due to entrenched interests. > The market failure is the government permitting people to buy and sell land. A small trust buying up some land and taking it off the market doesn't fix the underlying failure. This argument is hopeless. Good chat.
- ikeboy 7y agoFine, you want a policy that's better than the one described in OP but feasible on a small scale? Have the city buy up land and rent it out at market price. Allow any kind of housing to be built on top of it, have no requirements for income etc. Then use the profit this produces over the current system to directly subsidise low income households. This is more efficient and has the same subsidy effect.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- gowld 7y agoThe article is literally about preventing speculation by capping resale prices. That's pretty much equivalent to preventing buying and selling.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ikeboy 7y agoPreventing buying and selling of housing is actively harmful. Land shouldn't be sold, it should all be owned by the state and leased out at market value; equivalently, implement LVT at close to 100% of land value. The state setting a maximum sale price and subsidizing demand is not that.
- WalterBright 7y agoUh, my property tax bill has two amounts on it - the tax on the land value and the tax on the building. The bill is the sum.
- ikeboy 7y agoThe portion of tax on the building serves to discourage density. What's your point?
- WalterBright 7y ago> What's your point? That there already is a land value tax.
- ikeboy 7y agoGreat. Now get rid of the housing value tax and increase LVT to 95% or so.
- WalterBright 7y ago> The market failure is the government permitting people to buy and sell land. There are plenty of historical examples where people weren't permitted to buy and sell land. It never worked out very well.
- ikeboy 7y agoWhat historical examples of negative consequences of government control of land and renting it out to the highest bidder are you thinking of? Georgism has a solid theoretical foundation.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- WalterBright 7y agoRenters have little incentive to take care of it, and the government tends to not take care of it, either. The result is blight. It often happens with "the projects" where the government builds housing and rents it out.
- KozmoNau7 7y agoThat is caused by putting disenfranchised, poor and troubled people there, and no longer giving a damn about them once they have a simple roof over their heads. Renters can have exactly as much community spirit and take as much pride in their dwellings as anyone, but it requires that they're treated with a modicum of respect, which unfortunately is exceedingly rare in lardlordism.
- WalterBright 7y ago> Renters can have exactly as much community spirit and take as much pride in their dwellings as anyone No, they don't. Talk to hotel staff sometime about how their guests treat the rooms, for just one example. Or how people rent cars and go race them. Or how sensible people avoid buying former car rentals. Anybody in any form of rental business knows it isn't true.