5 ms·

This exists in Vancouver. Unfortunately, the richest people once again find ways out of it, such as claiming the unit is uninhabitable due to renovation, and pr

by p49k 6y ago

This exists in Vancouver. Unfortunately, the richest people once again find ways out of it, such as claiming the unit is uninhabitable due to renovation, and proceeding with the slowest and most inefficient renovation process imaginable.

Robotbeat 6y ago
The solution is just a land value tax. You don’t get taxed on improvements to the land, you get taxed on the value of the land (ie based on the value of the surrounding land... a vacant lot—or a lot being “renovated”—pays the ~same tax per acre as a 3 story apartment building next door instead of an order of magnitude less).
- ryanianian 6y ago
  Not without pretty severe fallout for those on the other side of the equation. That same tax would force long-time homeowners and retirees out of their houses as soon as the neighbors start selling to build condos. Maybe this isn't a terrible thing if it leads to more density, but the profit still goes to the developer.
  - kwere 6y ago
    society still benefit from it
  - Robotbeat 6y ago
    On the contrary, in your scenario, the profit goes to the retirees whose land is now super valuable. That they can’t afford to pay the wealth tax on that land without selling/mortgaging some of it doesn’t mean they’re not now very wealthy. A mortgage or a reverse mortgage would allow them to live the rest of their lives there if they really wanted to. But they’d have to pay their fair share of the tax on that wealth.
  - dntrkv 6y ago
    You could waive fees for primary residences and tax the hell out of investment properties. I don't understand why prop 13 in California didn't work this way.
    - reducesuffering 6y ago
      Californians couldn't even majority vote last year to tax commercial properties at standard 1-1.5% rate, let alone investment properties... https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Tax_on_Commercial_and_Industrial_Properties_for_Education_and_Local_Government_Funding_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Tax_on_Co...

by p49k 6y ago

Robotbeat 6y ago

The solution is just a land value tax. You don’t get taxed on improvements to the land, you get taxed on the value of the land (ie based on the value of the surrounding land... a vacant lot—or a lot being “renovated”—pays the ~same tax per acre as a 3 story apartment building next door instead of an order of magnitude less).

ryanianian 6y ago
Not without pretty severe fallout for those on the other side of the equation. That same tax would force long-time homeowners and retirees out of their houses as soon as the neighbors start selling to build condos. Maybe this isn't a terrible thing if it leads to more density, but the profit still goes to the developer.
- kwere 6y ago
  society still benefit from it
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  On the contrary, in your scenario, the profit goes to the retirees whose land is now super valuable. That they can’t afford to pay the wealth tax on that land without selling/mortgaging some of it doesn’t mean they’re not now very wealthy. A mortgage or a reverse mortgage would allow them to live the rest of their lives there if they really wanted to. But they’d have to pay their fair share of the tax on that wealth.
- dntrkv 6y ago
  You could waive fees for primary residences and tax the hell out of investment properties. I don't understand why prop 13 in California didn't work this way.
  - reducesuffering 6y ago
    Californians couldn't even majority vote last year to tax commercial properties at standard 1-1.5% rate, let alone investment properties... https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Tax_on_Commercial_and_Industrial_Properties_for_Education_and_Local_Government_Funding_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Tax_on_Co...