3 ms·

High taxes incentivizes more productive use of real estate, such as multi family housing.

alexmingoia 6y ago
Only to the extent that it makes single family homes unaffordable. Lower taxes incentivize building any type of housing, and cheaper rent for multi-family buildings.
bcheung 6y ago
High taxes are good because people will have less room to live? This doesn't sound like a good justification.
- klipt 6y ago
  Most economists agree that a land value tax is economically the best kind of tax. Imagine property tax is 0. Why would anyone ever sell? All the land would effectively be owned by hereditary feudal lords. Texas has higher property taxes than California but more affordable housing. Makes you think.
  - bcheung 6y ago
    Funny enough, I actually agree with this, at least from an economics perspective. I'd much rather get rid of the income tax and have higher property taxes. That seems much more efficient to me.
    - charrondev 6y ago
      Move to New Hampshire then. There’s no escaping federal income taxes, but the is no state income tax or sales tax. Just a slightly higher property tax, and a lower state budget.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      If your goal is to have wealthier/higher income people pay proportionally more taxes than poorer/lower income people, i.e. reduce the wealth/income gap in society, then you want both income and property (specifically land value) tax.
  - killtimeatwork 6y ago
    > Imagine property tax is 0. Why would anyone ever sell? All the land would effectively be owned by hereditary feudal lords. You'd sell for the usual reason, i.e. you'd prefer having money rather than that particular piece of land? That money would be then spent on either consumption or an investment with higher yield than land-holding. In my home country Poland the land tax is negligible and yet the market for land exists, it's not held forever by "feudal lords".
    - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
      Your home country Poland is primarily agricultural - at least compared to the BA - and has much lower demand for housing. I suspect if you pick apart of the BA housing market you'll see some very large landlords with huge property portfolios. While they're not literally "feudal lords" they might as well be in terms of their self-serving influence on housing policy. Perhaps not coincidentally, some of them are FAANGs. https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/03/meet-silicon-valleys-top-property-owners/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/03/meet-silicon-valleys-...
      - killtimeatwork 6y ago
        But the logic still holds - it there's huge demand for housing, then presumably the land prices are off the charts and the land owners can still be enticed to sell for huge amounts of money and invest into something with higher returns. The market shouldn't be dead.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bawolff 6y ago
  If your goal is to have land be more efficiently used, and thus decrease housing prices by increasing supply, then yes it is. Whether or not you think efficient land use is a good thing is up to you. The question of what taxes accomplish is separate from the question of if a policy objective is "good".
- refurb 6y ago
  Why is that bad? If you own a single family home where an apartment tower could house 200 families (and there is demand for those units) why shouldn’t you pay a tax that reflects that?

Only to the extent that it makes single family homes unaffordable. Lower taxes incentivize building any type of housing, and cheaper rent for multi-family buildings.

bcheung 6y ago

High taxes are good because people will have less room to live? This doesn't sound like a good justification.

klipt 6y ago
Most economists agree that a land value tax is economically the best kind of tax. Imagine property tax is 0. Why would anyone ever sell? All the land would effectively be owned by hereditary feudal lords. Texas has higher property taxes than California but more affordable housing. Makes you think.
- bcheung 6y ago
  Funny enough, I actually agree with this, at least from an economics perspective. I'd much rather get rid of the income tax and have higher property taxes. That seems much more efficient to me.
  - charrondev 6y ago
    Move to New Hampshire then. There’s no escaping federal income taxes, but the is no state income tax or sales tax. Just a slightly higher property tax, and a lower state budget.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    If your goal is to have wealthier/higher income people pay proportionally more taxes than poorer/lower income people, i.e. reduce the wealth/income gap in society, then you want both income and property (specifically land value) tax.
- killtimeatwork 6y ago
  > Imagine property tax is 0. Why would anyone ever sell? All the land would effectively be owned by hereditary feudal lords. You'd sell for the usual reason, i.e. you'd prefer having money rather than that particular piece of land? That money would be then spent on either consumption or an investment with higher yield than land-holding. In my home country Poland the land tax is negligible and yet the market for land exists, it's not held forever by "feudal lords".
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    Your home country Poland is primarily agricultural - at least compared to the BA - and has much lower demand for housing. I suspect if you pick apart of the BA housing market you'll see some very large landlords with huge property portfolios. While they're not literally "feudal lords" they might as well be in terms of their self-serving influence on housing policy. Perhaps not coincidentally, some of them are FAANGs. https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/03/meet-silicon-valleys-top-property-owners/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/03/meet-silicon-valleys-...
    - killtimeatwork 6y ago
      But the logic still holds - it there's huge demand for housing, then presumably the land prices are off the charts and the land owners can still be enticed to sell for huge amounts of money and invest into something with higher returns. The market shouldn't be dead.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bawolff 6y ago
If your goal is to have land be more efficiently used, and thus decrease housing prices by increasing supply, then yes it is. Whether or not you think efficient land use is a good thing is up to you. The question of what taxes accomplish is separate from the question of if a policy objective is "good".
refurb 6y ago
Why is that bad? If you own a single family home where an apartment tower could house 200 families (and there is demand for those units) why shouldn’t you pay a tax that reflects that?