3 ms·

Restrictive zoning is a consequence of scarcity seeking incentives. Housing can't be both Affordable and a good Investment. Therefore the only proper value for

Restrictive zoning is a consequence of scarcity seeking incentives. Housing can't be both Affordable and a good Investment. Therefore the only proper value for a home is the price that it costs to build it. The way to do that is a 100% Land Value Tax.

wonderwonder 5y ago
Maybe I dont understand (which I am open too) but it does not seem to make sense unless we transition to a centrally managed economy. Supply and demand drive the price of housing. Whether a house is purchased as an investment or not, it will appreciate based on a variety of factors, including quality of schools, proximity to jobs, etc. If the price of housing did not fluctuate based on demand, and everyone could afford a house anywhere they wanted, who determines who gets the house? House A is on sale and 15 families can afford it. In the current situation, the highest offer takes it. If all offers were forced to be the same, who gets the house? How do you account for bias in the decision process?
- wallacoloo 5y ago
  I think the way this looks in GP’s proposal is “he who can afford to pay the most rent (taxes) gets the home”, which is a lot like the current system you describe except the rent (taxes) goes toward funding the city and improving such public goods as the schools and roads you mention, instead of rewarding speculators.
  - ItsMonkk 5y ago
    Yes, exactly. I go into a bit more in how I envision the plan in a previous post[0]. A much better introduction to the LVT is this book review[1]. People would still bid for the home. You might get one offer for $190k, another offer for $200k. But if enough homes got bid up in the area, taxes would rise and those high bidders would probably lose a small amount. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28525712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28525712 [1]: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progress-and-poverty https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr...

wonderwonder 5y ago

Maybe I dont understand (which I am open too) but it does not seem to make sense unless we transition to a centrally managed economy. Supply and demand drive the price of housing. Whether a house is purchased as an investment or not, it will appreciate based on a variety of factors, including quality of schools, proximity to jobs, etc. If the price of housing did not fluctuate based on demand, and everyone could afford a house anywhere they wanted, who determines who gets the house? House A is on sale and 15 families can afford it. In the current situation, the highest offer takes it. If all offers were forced to be the same, who gets the house? How do you account for bias in the decision process?

wallacoloo 5y ago
I think the way this looks in GP’s proposal is “he who can afford to pay the most rent (taxes) gets the home”, which is a lot like the current system you describe except the rent (taxes) goes toward funding the city and improving such public goods as the schools and roads you mention, instead of rewarding speculators.
- ItsMonkk 5y ago
  Yes, exactly. I go into a bit more in how I envision the plan in a previous post[0]. A much better introduction to the LVT is this book review[1]. People would still bid for the home. You might get one offer for $190k, another offer for $200k. But if enough homes got bid up in the area, taxes would rise and those high bidders would probably lose a small amount. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28525712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28525712 [1]: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progress-and-poverty https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr...