4 ms·
People cannot actually choose the location, without giving up their work. "You can only find work in a big metropolitan center that demands 60% of your salary
by berdario 6y ago
People cannot actually choose the location, without giving up their work.
"You can only find work in a big metropolitan center that demands 60% of your salary in rent? Though luck..."
Let's say that you work in London... if you are 1h away from your work, you're still likely in zone 3 or 4, which is pretty expensive.
Your choices then are: a 1h30/2h commute (each way) or giving up on having a place only for yourself, and start flatsharing
- aeternum 6y agoYes, we should probably treat land as much more of a public good, especially in cities. The true value of land has much more to do with the services nearby: jobs, shops, parks, emergency services. The majority of tax should be based on the land value, independent of the cost of structures built on that land. A single-family home (whether it be a shack or a million dollar mansion) in a city center with high land value is depriving the city of a lot of potential utility and should be taxed in proportion to that.
- drewmate 6y agoYou might find Georgism [0] interesting. Its tenets include a (steep) land value tax that proponents believe would sort out the 'best use' of land in city centers. It's a compelling idea, but unfortunately the driving force behind American government seems to be once you have something (property, a business, etc...) nobody can do anything that adversely affects it. And Americans (over age 40) already own a LOT of property and would not take kindly to new taxes on it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism#Main_tenets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism#Main_tenets
- prox 6y agoThis falls in line with the old economic school of how value is created, which fell in disfavor because it didn’t sit right with the upper classes, for clear reasons.
- whimsicalism 6y agoIf you're referencing the LTV, no it doesn't
- prox 6y agoNo, I am referencing the Value Of Everything by M.Mazzucato.
- drewmate 6y agoIt seems reasonable enough to me, but I don't own any land. I think I'm realistic enough to admit that if I had been born 35 years earlier and had two homes that I paid off in my 40's and had appreciated 350% since then, I would probably feel differently about it. It's a tough nut to crack, for sure.
- seoaeu 6y agoLand values are already captured in property taxes. There's certainly places where property taxes are too low and not doing enough to encourage better usage of the land, but that's straightforward to solve (though admittedly often not that easy politically)
- aeternum 6y agoPartially, but property taxes discourage improving the structures on the land as the property tax also increases based on the value of the structure. This is generally the opposite of what want. Renovations, upkeep, and property improvements are good things so why penalize them?
- kortilla 6y agoUntil property taxes stop taking into account the value of the structure, they are not equivalent at all.
- colinmhayes 6y agoProperty tax has horrid incentives. We want people to build more on expensive land, not less. LVT forces multi unit housing on prime spots.
- andrepd 6y ago> Yes, we should probably treat land as much more of a public good This is the central idea of Georgism, and it extends neatly to other things which are not the product of anyone's labour, like natural resources, pollution, or even issuance of credit (currently the banks have a monopoly on the power to create money/credit). It's all very interesting, a nice balance which retains the good features of markets but prevents or at least limits the harmful stuff: rent-seeking leeches, pure speculation divorced from fundamentals, etc. > especially in cities This reminds me of the “Lockean proviso”: Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. That is to say, taking natural resources, labouring, and keeping the profits of that activity, is only legitimate insofar as there is still “enough of it, and as good, in left in common for others”. > The true value of land has much more to do with the services nearby Oh absolutely! If a road is built, shops, the neighbourhood improved, schools, businesses, jobs, and therefore the desirability of your land increases... it's you that has to pay society back for what it has given you! It's not the resale value of your land that should rise.
- nakedshorts 6y agoName one career where rent is 60% of the income yet only exists in the largest cities.
- WarOnPrivacy 6y ago> Name one career where rent is 60% of the income yet only exists in the largest cities. Suggesting that there are careers that only exist in the largest cities seems like an odd thing for you to introduce into the conversation.
- throwawayboise 6y agoI think the point is that paying 60% of income in rent is unviable. You need to find a different job, a cheaper apartment, or move somewhere else. Maybe all of the above.
- WarOnPrivacy 6y ago> paying 60% of income in rent is unviable. You need to find a different job I think you mean you need to dedicate career-level resources to locating a job that pays a meaningful amount more than the one you have - then beating out the hundreds of other job applicants while assisting your kids thru 4 hours of evening homework, battling a chronic health condition, performing routine household upkeep and cleaning, spending 8 hours a week trying to turn health insurance into usable appointments and the several other hours of mandatory obligations. This assumes we are considering the sort of scenarios faced by typically, struggling folks - and we aren't treating challenges as if they exist in isolation. > a cheaper apartment, After looking you find an absurdly small number and their condition is substandard at best. The roaches, noise and maladjusted neighbors guarantee you won't get more than 5 hours sleep most nights. Moving into one of them would cost $4k out of pocket after all of the various expenses and deposits are totaled up. > or move somewhere else. Folks who have enough $$$$$$.$$ to wholly fund a move to another city probably aren't struggling to the point where they need to move.
- ctdonath 6y agoAt what point can we acknowledge the harsh reality of “adapt, move, or perish”? If your choices and circumstances can’t add up to a positive cash flow, there is no obligation for others to sacrifice their net productive choices so others can enjoy their net unproductive choices. We don’t live in a post scarcity Utopia; why do some strive so hard to cancel this truth?
- sjg007 6y agoWe need people to live where the jobs are. Yes you can also move jobs but that’s basically the why. Also you have a higher probability of advancing from poverty to middle class or even high income living in the Bay Area.
- visarga 6y ago> why do some strive so hard to cancel this truth? to equalize the outcomes based on group identities, based on the concept that identity is all that matters and choices, hard work and circumstances don't
- MomoXenosaga 6y agoYeah you can buy your dream house in the middle of nowhere for 200k but if you're a teacher, nurse or electrician job opportunities are likely scarce. People don't just live in cities for the opera.
- refurb 6y agoYou listed 3 occupations where opportunities aren’t that scarce and every town needs those people.
- andrepd 6y ago[citation needed]
- lcpriest 6y agoEvery town, including big cities where the above situation would occur.
- imgabe 6y agoWhich would imply that big cities have to pay more for those professions to compensate for the cost of living there, since they have the option to live somewhere cheaper. And indeed, they do pay more.
- imgabe 6y agoThere is usually more than one rental available withing commuting distance of a given job.