4 ms·

I don't think that would work in the long run either. If it becomes expensive to own a lot of land due to taxes then the simple solution is to not own land and

by pharke 6y ago

I don't think that would work in the long run either. If it becomes expensive to own a lot of land due to taxes then the simple solution is to not own land and it's easy to implement as there is no requirement to hold land as an asset, it's only a convenient store of wealth at the moment. The minute it becomes inconvenient you would see the wealthy divest their ownership of land in favour of some other asset with less tax burden.

skluug 6y ago
Divest how? By selling? To who?
- pharke 6y ago
  Someone who wants to rent it out for a profit. Someone who wants to redevelop it as a business. The value of real estate would probably take a big hit with a tax hike like the one proposed as owners move to liquidate so there would be a glut of properties at first but it would eventually find a price for each that is acceptable to buyers. Haven't you ever wondered how beautiful, historic residences in prime urban locations got turned into apartments and condos?
filoleg 6y ago
>The minute it becomes inconvenient you would see the wealthy divest their ownership of land in favour of some other asset with less tax burden. Wouldn't that be a "win" situation as well? Because at least it will reduce the incentive to go all NIMBY on new denser development, which seems to be the main blocker when it comes to housing pricing (and, consequentially, ownership/renting). Unless I misunderstood what you said, it seems like you are saying that this policy won't completely solve the issue. But it would make it at least better, while, at the same time, making "property as a store of wealth" less viable. Which would (in my estimation) make housing cheaper (directly) just due to people not hoarding the land anymore and (indirectly) due to decreased NIMBYism blocking denser housing developments. So while it might not be a win-win-win, situation, it could definitely be a win-win situation. Or at least a singular win situation without much losses or negatives attached to it (at least as far as I am seeing this, which could definitely be wrong; in which case, please correct me, as I am thinking through this as I am going; I am far from being the expert on the situation).
- pharke 6y ago
  I thought we were talking about taxation at the federal level, not the local.

by pharke 6y ago

skluug 6y ago

Divest how? By selling? To who?

pharke 6y ago
Someone who wants to rent it out for a profit. Someone who wants to redevelop it as a business. The value of real estate would probably take a big hit with a tax hike like the one proposed as owners move to liquidate so there would be a glut of properties at first but it would eventually find a price for each that is acceptable to buyers. Haven't you ever wondered how beautiful, historic residences in prime urban locations got turned into apartments and condos?

filoleg 6y ago

>The minute it becomes inconvenient you would see the wealthy divest their ownership of land in favour of some other asset with less tax burden. Wouldn't that be a "win" situation as well? Because at least it will reduce the incentive to go all NIMBY on new denser development, which seems to be the main blocker when it comes to housing pricing (and, consequentially, ownership/renting). Unless I misunderstood what you said, it seems like you are saying that this policy won't completely solve the issue. But it would make it at least better, while, at the same time, making "property as a store of wealth" less viable. Which would (in my estimation) make housing cheaper (directly) just due to people not hoarding the land anymore and (indirectly) due to decreased NIMBYism blocking denser housing developments. So while it might not be a win-win-win, situation, it could definitely be a win-win situation. Or at least a singular win situation without much losses or negatives attached to it (at least as far as I am seeing this, which could definitely be wrong; in which case, please correct me, as I am thinking through this as I am going; I am far from being the expert on the situation).

pharke 6y ago
I thought we were talking about taxation at the federal level, not the local.