>In high-demand areas it's the land that's valuable, not the structures on the land There's an old saying, tax something, get less of it. Often used to support

>In high-demand areas it's the land that's valuable, not the structures on the land There's an old saying, tax something, get less of it. Often used to support some atavistic conservative position, it nonetheless seems relevant here. 1. We want more affordable housing. 2. The cost of land is a major problem. 3. So, tax the land value mostly out of existence and don't tax the improvements at all. It may sound crazy but why not give it a go? The key idea is that land is the one thing that you don't get less of when you tax it. Nor can you get more of it by taxing it less. This is not my idea, it's based on economic ideas over a century old, although I wouldn't go so far as to say the only tax should be land value. Just maybe see if specifically real estate and its taxes could be unfucked in this way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism This is almost too perfect: "One day in 1871 George went for a horseback ride and stopped to rest while overlooking San Francisco Bay. He later wrote of the revelation that he had: I asked a passing teamster, for want of something better to say, what land was worth there. He pointed to some cows grazing so far off that they looked like mice, and said, "I don't know exactly, but there is a man over there who will sell some land for a thousand dollars an acre." Like a flash it came over me that there was the reason of advancing poverty with advancing wealth. With the growth of population, land grows in value, and the men who work it must pay more for the privilege"