3 ms·

Landowners should be paying a land value tax equivalent to the value of their property. That way local services are well-funded. What I"m not ok with is a leas

by kory 5y ago

Landowners should be paying a land value tax equivalent to the value of their property. That way local services are well-funded. What I"m not ok with is a lease system where the stability of your family and descendants is put at risk if the government refuses to re-lease the property to you. Who knows how tyrannical the government will be in a 100 years. Ownership is a stronger model. Your property can't easily be taken away by bureaucrats so long as you pay taxes on time.

tzs 5y ago
> Landowners should be paying a land value tax equivalent to the value of their property. That way local services are well-funded. Why is that a good way to fund local services? The costs to provide most services have nothing to do with the value of the property, so why should my neighbor pay more for them than I do just because their house is on a bigger lot?
- kory 5y ago
  The difference would be negligible unless the land is valuable enough that more improvements could be supported by local services and demand. For example, if your home sits in a hot area where there is high demand for apartments, the home with the larger lot would pay more taxes because the potential for the lot is much higher. Once the lot built to its potential, the tax per occupant would level to a fair cost per local government service used. Of course, the owner can continue to pay a higher tax burden to use more of the lot for themselves. Because they own the lot, the government can’t force them to do anything else. That’s how it should be. No government intervention / lease needed, just incentivize development by asking owners to pay an appropriate tax amount for the value of the space they occupy and let people make their own choices.
- leetcrew 5y ago
  it's not so much the cost of providing services so much as what is driving the property value. in highly desirable locales, the value of a property is affected much more by what people are doing around you than any improvements you could make to a private dwelling. or alternatively, you could consider it a tax on the opportunity cost of you having exclusive use of a piece of land. your neighbor with the bigger lot is not consuming (much) more services, but the opportunity cost of not building more stuff on that lot is proportionately higher.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by kory 5y ago

tzs 5y ago

> Landowners should be paying a land value tax equivalent to the value of their property. That way local services are well-funded. Why is that a good way to fund local services? The costs to provide most services have nothing to do with the value of the property, so why should my neighbor pay more for them than I do just because their house is on a bigger lot?

kory 5y ago
The difference would be negligible unless the land is valuable enough that more improvements could be supported by local services and demand. For example, if your home sits in a hot area where there is high demand for apartments, the home with the larger lot would pay more taxes because the potential for the lot is much higher. Once the lot built to its potential, the tax per occupant would level to a fair cost per local government service used. Of course, the owner can continue to pay a higher tax burden to use more of the lot for themselves. Because they own the lot, the government can’t force them to do anything else. That’s how it should be. No government intervention / lease needed, just incentivize development by asking owners to pay an appropriate tax amount for the value of the space they occupy and let people make their own choices.
leetcrew 5y ago
it's not so much the cost of providing services so much as what is driving the property value. in highly desirable locales, the value of a property is affected much more by what people are doing around you than any improvements you could make to a private dwelling. or alternatively, you could consider it a tax on the opportunity cost of you having exclusive use of a piece of land. your neighbor with the bigger lot is not consuming (much) more services, but the opportunity cost of not building more stuff on that lot is proportionately higher.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]