3 ms·

>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

by 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
I was going off the original reply where it was, I understand you don't see it that way. All zoning is local is a term used, and back to my case this sounds like a tax on land, not the building. In that case, all land is the same, perhaps high regardless of the building. So for this town, we have some lots at 1/2 acre, most at 1 acre. Well + septic. If one want to build denser housing it needs to break zoning that is local which says lots must be 1 acre (some are grandfathered in) with a 36 ft set back from the property line and no more than 30% build up of the land. A federal or state rule could do that, but what that doesn't account for is the water aquifer which perhaps can't handle spitting into 1/4 acre lots and quadrupling the town population. Plus 4x septic systems could but an undue strain on the area. A law could be passed to force a sewer system and a municipal water system which would not be cheap. This is one small town and to get a dense population we are talking millions in infrastructure spending to get to a point that can handle a dense population to better use the land. There are just so many factors in each area, each being unique to the area, that makes efficient land use more complicated. I also haven't even got into environmental protection, water run off and other pollution issues that are also addressed in zoning.

by jrs235 5y ago

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

I was going off the original reply where it was, I understand you don't see it that way. All zoning is local is a term used, and back to my case this sounds like a tax on land, not the building. In that case, all land is the same, perhaps high regardless of the building. So for this town, we have some lots at 1/2 acre, most at 1 acre. Well + septic. If one want to build denser housing it needs to break zoning that is local which says lots must be 1 acre (some are grandfathered in) with a 36 ft set back from the property line and no more than 30% build up of the land. A federal or state rule could do that, but what that doesn't account for is the water aquifer which perhaps can't handle spitting into 1/4 acre lots and quadrupling the town population. Plus 4x septic systems could but an undue strain on the area. A law could be passed to force a sewer system and a municipal water system which would not be cheap. This is one small town and to get a dense population we are talking millions in infrastructure spending to get to a point that can handle a dense population to better use the land. There are just so many factors in each area, each being unique to the area, that makes efficient land use more complicated. I also haven't even got into environmental protection, water run off and other pollution issues that are also addressed in zoning.