4 ms·
> A land tax can’t disincentivize anything — land will continue to exist regardless of any taxation scheme. It could and would disincetivize keeping lands in t
by murphyslab 4y ago
> A land tax can’t disincentivize anything — land will continue to exist regardless of any taxation scheme.
It could and would disincetivize keeping lands in their natural state, since one is compelled to build in order to have the land not be a financial burden. Unless there is some kind of exclusion for that, it could result in sprawl.
- dropit_sphere 4y agoEconomically advantageous sprawl, though---or it would have to be, to meet the owner's goals of not being a financial burden. I think the idea is that in that situation the owner sells, though.
- murphyslab 4y agoSprawl isn't economically advantageous to cities, since low-density sprawl does not generate sufficient funds to cover the associated infrastructure. High-density urban cores end up subsidizing those infrastructure costs. [0] The end result is what Strong Towns refers to as the "Growth Ponzi Scheme". [1] [0] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/8/4/the-question-every-city-should-be-asking https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/8/4/the-question-ev... [1] https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme
- dropit_sphere 4y agoI certainly sympathize, but I'm not sure what this has to do with land tax. If cities can't efficiently provide infra to certain building patterns, they should either reduce their guarantees ("You can build there, but you'll have to lay down wire yourself"), or prohibit building differently. Both seem compatible with an LVT.