3 ms·

Or we could, you know, intelligently tax property nationally and tie it to a national dividend that directly goes to landed immigrants and citizens in the form

Or we could, you know, intelligently tax property nationally and tie it to a national dividend that directly goes to landed immigrants and citizens in the form of a basic income. It will make sure that the poor and lower middle class don't get hosed and simultaneously make property a less attractive investment for foreigners or would-be mansion builders. I don't want to live in the same place my whole life and I don't want every Canadian city to look and feel the same.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
Property taxes should be doing that already, maybe we just need a national property tax? I'm all for basic income as a form of wealth re-distribution (as long as the money does't come from nowhere and stoke inflation).
- zip1234 5y ago
  Land value tax would prevent people from buying land without a plan to make it useful. IE ending land speculation and encouraging productive uses of land.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    > Land value tax would prevent people from buying land without a plan to make it useful. Ya: a land value tax is just a property tax that ignores improvements (charing based on what could be built rather than what is built). But it would totally destroy the low income housing market (since property owners of old run down low-end rentals would be seriously penalized for not building new luxury apartments).
    - zip1234 5y ago
      1. There is a difference between luxury apartments and new apartments. 2. More likely the most egregious wasted land uses will be destroyed and not something already being used fairly productively. For example empty lots or parking lots are low value and would be turned into housing, driving down prices far before any existing building would be affected
      - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        > 1. There is a difference between luxury apartments and new apartments. In the USA, not really. Today's new luxury apartment is tomorrow's old but affordable housing. Given the expense in building something, there isn't much cost difference to developers in building low-income units or high-income units, and if they go with the latter they will lose their shirts (Not to mention the low-income tenants of those houses would have to pay land use taxes similar to their richer neighbors). > For example empty lots or parking lots are low value and would be turned into housing, There really aren't many of those left in the cities people want to live in. Undergound parking and multi-level parking garages are already a thing in dense locations where property values alone mean turning something into a parking lot is bad use (unless you are saving up the parking lots to create something rand like Vulcan's South Lake Union project in Seattle). I'm still all for it, but we would probably have to sink a lot more money into public housing to prevent a bloody revolution from occurring.
Aerroon 5y ago
>It will make sure that the poor and lower middle class don't get hosed and simultaneously make property a less attractive investment for foreigners or would-be mansion builders. It will also make sure that you get enough leeway to build in all the corruption you want. Or at least all the NIMBYism you want. "Yeah, to build in this region you have to pay this huge tax unless you fill out this form and we approve." Any time you build an intelligent (read: complex) system you rely on the goodwill of the people that build it and maintain it to do what you want the system to do. This in turn gives those people great opportunities to take advantage of others.
- rcpt 5y ago
  You're talking about "impact fees" which are dumb for that reason. OP is more about land value tax
imtringued 5y ago
That is actually a good idea but you shouldn't tax the improvement to the land. If someone constructs a building that building should be privately owned just like a car would be privately owned. A national dividend that pays out land value taxes democratizes access to land for all citizens of that nation and thereby makes it pointless to have exclusive access over specific plots of land for the sake of rent seeking. It only makes sense to own a plot of land if you want to "work" that land or rephrased, when society collectively agrees that you should have this plot of land.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

Property taxes should be doing that already, maybe we just need a national property tax? I'm all for basic income as a form of wealth re-distribution (as long as the money does't come from nowhere and stoke inflation).

zip1234 5y ago
Land value tax would prevent people from buying land without a plan to make it useful. IE ending land speculation and encouraging productive uses of land.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  > Land value tax would prevent people from buying land without a plan to make it useful. Ya: a land value tax is just a property tax that ignores improvements (charing based on what could be built rather than what is built). But it would totally destroy the low income housing market (since property owners of old run down low-end rentals would be seriously penalized for not building new luxury apartments).
  - zip1234 5y ago
    1. There is a difference between luxury apartments and new apartments. 2. More likely the most egregious wasted land uses will be destroyed and not something already being used fairly productively. For example empty lots or parking lots are low value and would be turned into housing, driving down prices far before any existing building would be affected
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      > 1. There is a difference between luxury apartments and new apartments. In the USA, not really. Today's new luxury apartment is tomorrow's old but affordable housing. Given the expense in building something, there isn't much cost difference to developers in building low-income units or high-income units, and if they go with the latter they will lose their shirts (Not to mention the low-income tenants of those houses would have to pay land use taxes similar to their richer neighbors). > For example empty lots or parking lots are low value and would be turned into housing, There really aren't many of those left in the cities people want to live in. Undergound parking and multi-level parking garages are already a thing in dense locations where property values alone mean turning something into a parking lot is bad use (unless you are saving up the parking lots to create something rand like Vulcan's South Lake Union project in Seattle). I'm still all for it, but we would probably have to sink a lot more money into public housing to prevent a bloody revolution from occurring.

Aerroon 5y ago

>It will make sure that the poor and lower middle class don't get hosed and simultaneously make property a less attractive investment for foreigners or would-be mansion builders. It will also make sure that you get enough leeway to build in all the corruption you want. Or at least all the NIMBYism you want. "Yeah, to build in this region you have to pay this huge tax unless you fill out this form and we approve." Any time you build an intelligent (read: complex) system you rely on the goodwill of the people that build it and maintain it to do what you want the system to do. This in turn gives those people great opportunities to take advantage of others.

rcpt 5y ago
You're talking about "impact fees" which are dumb for that reason. OP is more about land value tax

imtringued 5y ago

That is actually a good idea but you shouldn't tax the improvement to the land. If someone constructs a building that building should be privately owned just like a car would be privately owned. A national dividend that pays out land value taxes democratizes access to land for all citizens of that nation and thereby makes it pointless to have exclusive access over specific plots of land for the sake of rent seeking. It only makes sense to own a plot of land if you want to "work" that land or rephrased, when society collectively agrees that you should have this plot of land.