3 ms·

The easiest argument against current property taxes is that they have completely failed to prevent the current situation. They do not properly incentive the eff

The easiest argument against current property taxes is that they have completely failed to prevent the current situation. They do not properly incentive the efficient use of land, so mini-kings get to sit in their mini-castles and argue against densification while looking down on the new-comer peasants. And the current situation is already “destroying” peoples lives as their courses into “normal” adulthood are interrupted and delayed, so it’s somewhat a question of who feels the effects. The difference with devaluing homes is that people may lose some wealth, but they still have a home! Investments are supposed to risky, that’s why you make money off of them sometimes; so let’s make it that way for houses.

frumper 5y ago
I fail to see how to tax land at a rate that would hurt rich cash loaded people/corporations and still make homes affordable. If your plan works to the point people can afford the taxes on the cheap homes then the rich people can also afford to have neighborhoods of rentals. Please present your idea though, maybe I'm not understanding.
- jrs235 5y ago
  It's not about hurting rich people. Where is this class warfare idea coming from?! It's about making the best use of the land. A land tax encourages building denser housing and therefore increasing the number of homes available to people, putting downward pressure on housing (and rent) prices. A land tax does not go up if the dwelling on it go up in value/price. It encourages replacing single family homes with denser dwellings.
silicon2401 5y ago
> argue against densification there's nothing wrong with being against densification. Cities like SF and Seoul would be a nightmare for me to live in because I hate cities and being around a lot of people.
quags 5y ago
I can't speak for everywhere, but I live is a very high tax rate in the north east and of cousre the larger the high or more land, the higher the taxes. The town I live in some houses, which generally don't exceed 1 acre lots can have taxes in excess of 100,000k a year. This is really as close to a land tax in action I can see. There are few empty lots, no one is sitting on land, and you can be sure no one is building large apartment buildings - the taxes would be extremely excessive. To add to that, the high taxes have not encouraged investment from the town itself to build infrastructure that would support more efficient use of land. Sure there are roads. The schools are well funded, its the north east which tends to have excellent investments into schools. Not only am I close to New York city, so not out on the woods or anything, I am also on well and septic. There is no municipal water or sewer. This has the added point of making building affordable housing next to impossible, which was likely not the reason for well and septic, but is now a reason not to add it for NIMBY. So while a land tax to punish the rich would help make people feel better, with what I see it will enrich some, but not benefit who you think would benefit.
- jrs235 5y ago
  >and you can be sure no one is building large apartment buildings - the taxes would be extremely excessive With a land tax the taxes wouldn't increase if large apartment buildings were built on it because the tax amount is solely based on the value of the land and not the property on it. >So while a land tax to punish the rich would help make people feel better, with what I see it will enrich some, but not benefit who you think would benefit. First, people don't propose a land tax to punish the rich. Second, it's not about benefitting specific individuals (picking winners and losers). It's about benefitting everyone by ensuring the optimal use of the land.
  - frumper 5y ago
    The person we replied to proposed to do this to specifically hurt the upper class. He even acknowledged that doing so would unfortunately destroy the middle class in order to hurt the rich
  - quags 5y ago
quantified 5y ago
Property taxes do not exist to have any impact on mortgage rates. We’ve had 5% mortgage rates a little while back and all was fine.

frumper 5y ago

I fail to see how to tax land at a rate that would hurt rich cash loaded people/corporations and still make homes affordable. If your plan works to the point people can afford the taxes on the cheap homes then the rich people can also afford to have neighborhoods of rentals. Please present your idea though, maybe I'm not understanding.

jrs235 5y ago
It's not about hurting rich people. Where is this class warfare idea coming from?! It's about making the best use of the land. A land tax encourages building denser housing and therefore increasing the number of homes available to people, putting downward pressure on housing (and rent) prices. A land tax does not go up if the dwelling on it go up in value/price. It encourages replacing single family homes with denser dwellings.

silicon2401 5y ago

> argue against densification there's nothing wrong with being against densification. Cities like SF and Seoul would be a nightmare for me to live in because I hate cities and being around a lot of people.

quags 5y ago

I can't speak for everywhere, but I live is a very high tax rate in the north east and of cousre the larger the high or more land, the higher the taxes. The town I live in some houses, which generally don't exceed 1 acre lots can have taxes in excess of 100,000k a year. This is really as close to a land tax in action I can see. There are few empty lots, no one is sitting on land, and you can be sure no one is building large apartment buildings - the taxes would be extremely excessive. To add to that, the high taxes have not encouraged investment from the town itself to build infrastructure that would support more efficient use of land. Sure there are roads. The schools are well funded, its the north east which tends to have excellent investments into schools. Not only am I close to New York city, so not out on the woods or anything, I am also on well and septic. There is no municipal water or sewer. This has the added point of making building affordable housing next to impossible, which was likely not the reason for well and septic, but is now a reason not to add it for NIMBY. So while a land tax to punish the rich would help make people feel better, with what I see it will enrich some, but not benefit who you think would benefit.

jrs235 5y ago
>and you can be sure no one is building large apartment buildings - the taxes would be extremely excessive With a land tax the taxes wouldn't increase if large apartment buildings were built on it because the tax amount is solely based on the value of the land and not the property on it. >So while a land tax to punish the rich would help make people feel better, with what I see it will enrich some, but not benefit who you think would benefit. First, people don't propose a land tax to punish the rich. Second, it's not about benefitting specific individuals (picking winners and losers). It's about benefitting everyone by ensuring the optimal use of the land.
- frumper 5y ago
  The person we replied to proposed to do this to specifically hurt the upper class. He even acknowledged that doing so would unfortunately destroy the middle class in order to hurt the rich
- quags 5y ago

quantified 5y ago

Property taxes do not exist to have any impact on mortgage rates. We’ve had 5% mortgage rates a little while back and all was fine.