4 ms·

Taxing wealth -- albeit in this limited form -- is fairly attractive, and especially the taxation of land (rather than improvements) is. (We should be incentivi

Taxing wealth -- albeit in this limited form -- is fairly attractive, and especially the taxation of land (rather than improvements) is. (We should be incentivizing folks to make efficient use of land.)

zepto 6y ago
> We should be incentivizing folks to make efficient use of land. Yes - why don’t we invest in places where house prices are lower? Stockton keeps being mentioned. The incentives are for people to live there and for businesses to set up offices there, and amenities to be created for the people who live and work there. Why would you be against developing areas that are not as nice right now?
- paconbork 6y ago
  >The incentives are for people to live there and for businesses to set up offices there Clearly not, otherwise people would move there. As it turns out, network effects exist, causing jobs to be near each other and for some reason people like to be close to their jobs rather than commuting 90 minutes from Stockton. >Why would you be against developing areas that are not as nice right now? These aren't mutually exclusive and you know that.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > Clearly not, otherwise people would move there. Comments elsewhere claim people are moving there since housing is cheaper there. > As it turns out, network effects exist, causing jobs to be near each other and for some reason people like to be close to their jobs rather than commuting 90 minutes from Stockton. That can be solved by building offices in Stockton. Businesses expanding out of areas that are too expensive is a good thing. Forcing people out of their homes so that businesses have access to a bigger pool of workers without needing to open more offices just seems like corporate welfare, forcing yet another externality onto both employees and the nearby community. >Why would you be against developing areas that are not as nice right now? > These aren't mutually exclusive and you know that. The choice to live on one place versus another is mutually exclusive. The argument seems to be that older people should be taxed out of homes near successful businesses so that current workers can live nearer to workplaces. (And they in turn should be taxed more so that they too move out as soon as they can). That seems to be very much about businesses not needing to expand to areas in need of development.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  > Yes - why don’t we invest in places where house prices are lower? There is an old quote. "Why do people rob banks? Because that is where the money is." Whatever benefits of the area are why people were willing to pay higher prices. It is good for not as nice areas to develop but trying to bootstrapping a less developed area is also expensive with fewer guarantees of demand in the area. It is like trying to go max density zoning from the start in Sim City and having massive bills and no demand. "Retirement communities" are the main demand for those cheaper niches and even then they have other demands to fulfill like medical care.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > trying to bootstrapping a less developed area Nobody is talking about bootstrapping demand in less developed areas. Elsewhere people were talking about how people were being forced to buy houses in places like Stockton because they couldn’t afford to buy them in Cupertino. So the demand is already there. One complaint was that those people have to travel a long way to get to work. One dystopian solution to this is to use taxes to confiscate property from people who live near employees, so that workers can live there temporarily. Another way is for companies to open offices in places where their workers can afford to live, contributing to the creation of more attractive communities as they do so.

zepto 6y ago

> We should be incentivizing folks to make efficient use of land. Yes - why don’t we invest in places where house prices are lower? Stockton keeps being mentioned. The incentives are for people to live there and for businesses to set up offices there, and amenities to be created for the people who live and work there. Why would you be against developing areas that are not as nice right now?

paconbork 6y ago
>The incentives are for people to live there and for businesses to set up offices there Clearly not, otherwise people would move there. As it turns out, network effects exist, causing jobs to be near each other and for some reason people like to be close to their jobs rather than commuting 90 minutes from Stockton. >Why would you be against developing areas that are not as nice right now? These aren't mutually exclusive and you know that.
- zepto 6y ago
  > Clearly not, otherwise people would move there. Comments elsewhere claim people are moving there since housing is cheaper there. > As it turns out, network effects exist, causing jobs to be near each other and for some reason people like to be close to their jobs rather than commuting 90 minutes from Stockton. That can be solved by building offices in Stockton. Businesses expanding out of areas that are too expensive is a good thing. Forcing people out of their homes so that businesses have access to a bigger pool of workers without needing to open more offices just seems like corporate welfare, forcing yet another externality onto both employees and the nearby community. >Why would you be against developing areas that are not as nice right now? > These aren't mutually exclusive and you know that. The choice to live on one place versus another is mutually exclusive. The argument seems to be that older people should be taxed out of homes near successful businesses so that current workers can live nearer to workplaces. (And they in turn should be taxed more so that they too move out as soon as they can). That seems to be very much about businesses not needing to expand to areas in need of development.
Nasrudith 6y ago
> Yes - why don’t we invest in places where house prices are lower? There is an old quote. "Why do people rob banks? Because that is where the money is." Whatever benefits of the area are why people were willing to pay higher prices. It is good for not as nice areas to develop but trying to bootstrapping a less developed area is also expensive with fewer guarantees of demand in the area. It is like trying to go max density zoning from the start in Sim City and having massive bills and no demand. "Retirement communities" are the main demand for those cheaper niches and even then they have other demands to fulfill like medical care.
- zepto 6y ago
  > trying to bootstrapping a less developed area Nobody is talking about bootstrapping demand in less developed areas. Elsewhere people were talking about how people were being forced to buy houses in places like Stockton because they couldn’t afford to buy them in Cupertino. So the demand is already there. One complaint was that those people have to travel a long way to get to work. One dystopian solution to this is to use taxes to confiscate property from people who live near employees, so that workers can live there temporarily. Another way is for companies to open offices in places where their workers can afford to live, contributing to the creation of more attractive communities as they do so.