5 ms·

> if they could actually charge higher without losing money as a result, they already would have That’s not numerically correct. There are different market pre

> if they could actually charge higher without losing money as a result, they already would have That’s not numerically correct. There are different market pressures on renters versus owners. A landlord can only charge what a renter is capable of paying regardless of taxes or value on the property. If a property ends up in the red because either the landlord cannot charge high enough rents or cannot find tenants they can always not renew the lease and sell the property where they may still earn a profit. Also, high property taxes do not penalize development. I live in an area with high property taxes and it’s one of the fastest growing areas in the country for the last 20 years.

yellowapple 6y ago
> A landlord can only charge what a renter is capable of paying regardless of taxes or value on the property. If there are no/insufficient renters able or willing to pay rent above some point, then that strongly implies what the actual value of that rental might be. So I'm failing to see where what I wrote would be "not numerically correct"; if anything, that only serves to demonstrate my point, no? > Also, high property taxes do not penalize development. I live in an area with high property taxes and it’s one of the fastest growing areas in the country for the last 20 years. Seems more likely that the growth is in spite of the high property taxes, and that converting those property taxes into land value taxes would improve things further. Numerically-speaking, a general property tax does penalize development, since more development = more overall property value = more property tax; the rental demand might be sufficient to make it worthwhile to develop anyway (because the increased rental income exceeds the increased property tax), but it's still a hindrance in that equation. Contrast with LVT, where the tax is an active driver of development rather than being some minimum bar that not everyone will be see as worthwhile/profitable to hurdle.

yellowapple 6y ago

> A landlord can only charge what a renter is capable of paying regardless of taxes or value on the property. If there are no/insufficient renters able or willing to pay rent above some point, then that strongly implies what the actual value of that rental might be. So I'm failing to see where what I wrote would be "not numerically correct"; if anything, that only serves to demonstrate my point, no? > Also, high property taxes do not penalize development. I live in an area with high property taxes and it’s one of the fastest growing areas in the country for the last 20 years. Seems more likely that the growth is in spite of the high property taxes, and that converting those property taxes into land value taxes would improve things further. Numerically-speaking, a general property tax does penalize development, since more development = more overall property value = more property tax; the rental demand might be sufficient to make it worthwhile to develop anyway (because the increased rental income exceeds the increased property tax), but it's still a hindrance in that equation. Contrast with LVT, where the tax is an active driver of development rather than being some minimum bar that not everyone will be see as worthwhile/profitable to hurdle.