3 ms·

the solution is a land value tax. instead of taxing properties based on how much the building on it is worth, tax properties based on how much a theoretical bu

the solution is a land value tax. instead of taxing properties based on how much the building on it is worth, tax properties based on how much a theoretical building could be worth on that same piece of land. if you want to have a bungalo but the market wants a skyscraper, that's fine, but you have to pay the same tax as a skyscraper would. it encourages your solutions without "forcing" anything.

gameman144 6y ago
This makes total sense for incentivizing development, as you can essentially price out the locals to get access to their land. It's definitely a double-edged sword with no right answer, though. You can encourage the efficient use of land with high land taxes to bring in development of badly needed housing, but you will be altering the ability of previous residents to stay in their homes. Likewise, it's not unreasonable to see local governments reflect the will of their constituents saying "We recognize that these actions mean that new people and businesses will not be able to move in here, and we're all fine with that." It seems like this is directly a tradeoff between the rights of current residents vs. considerations for prospective residents. Neither one of those groups is intrinsically more valuable than the other. While land tax is really great at making places more livable for new residents at the expense of current occupants, restrictive zoning and current-valuation taxes are great at preserving the neighborhoods that people already live in, at the expense of new people being able to join those neighborhoods.
- notatoad 6y ago
  it's only a tradeoff in areas where residents are not landowners, so the landlords profit off development. which is one of the problems solved by a more equitable distribution of land, like a land-value tax promotes. in any area where the residents are the landowners, they're being paid a fair price for their land and so the development is not "at the expense" of anybody.

gameman144 6y ago

This makes total sense for incentivizing development, as you can essentially price out the locals to get access to their land. It's definitely a double-edged sword with no right answer, though. You can encourage the efficient use of land with high land taxes to bring in development of badly needed housing, but you will be altering the ability of previous residents to stay in their homes. Likewise, it's not unreasonable to see local governments reflect the will of their constituents saying "We recognize that these actions mean that new people and businesses will not be able to move in here, and we're all fine with that." It seems like this is directly a tradeoff between the rights of current residents vs. considerations for prospective residents. Neither one of those groups is intrinsically more valuable than the other. While land tax is really great at making places more livable for new residents at the expense of current occupants, restrictive zoning and current-valuation taxes are great at preserving the neighborhoods that people already live in, at the expense of new people being able to join those neighborhoods.

notatoad 6y ago
it's only a tradeoff in areas where residents are not landowners, so the landlords profit off development. which is one of the problems solved by a more equitable distribution of land, like a land-value tax promotes. in any area where the residents are the landowners, they're being paid a fair price for their land and so the development is not "at the expense" of anybody.