3 ms·

> Thats the same for literally any product or service in the world which you like which goes up in price due to increased demand. I already own the home. Imag

> Thats the same for literally any product or service in the world which you like which goes up in price due to increased demand. I already own the home. Imagine that sales tax was assessed yearly on every item you already own, based on the current market value if you were to chose to sell it that year. > The only difference is that if LVT goes up it does mean you can charge more rent so you potentially could benefit even if you choose not to. How does that help me if I’m not a rent-seeking landlord? How does that help the community that you want to forcibly dismantle?

pydry 4y ago
>I already own the home. A privileged position the poorer half of the population doesnt share. They have to deal with rising rents along with rising gas prices. >Imagine that sales tax was assessed yearly on every item you already own, based on the current market value Imagine instead that it was limited just to the roof over your head. Voila youve just imagined rent. Something the poorer half of the population HAS to deal with. Im just proposing leveling the playing field between renters and owners by limiting owners' right to capitalize on land value increases. That is, taking away what are effectively handouts given to you. Free money. Wealth you didnt earn because the land value isnt about you or your house. >How does that help me if I’m not a rent-seeking landlord 1. The option is always there. Whether you exercise it or not having the option of an additional stream of income DOES help you. 2. Your net worth literally goes up. You can easily convert that net worth into cash if you choose. Reverse mortgages, etc. >How does that help the community that you want to forcibly dismantle? With a higher land value tax land would HAVE to be used more efficiently. Denser housing etc. That means lower rents. That means renters who were priced out of their homes, forcibly dismantling their community, get to stay. Some people think forcibly dismantling communities of renters is fine. Perhaps they dont think they matter coz theyre typically less white communities. Perhaps this is what they really want.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  > Im just proposing leveling the playing field between renters and owners by limiting owners' right to capitalize on land value increases. Nobody is capitalizing on unrealized land value increases. That’s literally the definition of “unrealized”. “Make everything terrible for everyone” is one way to level a playing field, but rarely a good way. > That is, taking away what are effectively handouts given to you. Free money. Wealth you didnt earn because the land value isnt about you or your house. What free money? The wealth is unrealized. If I want to continue living in my community, it may never be realized. When and if it ever is, you can tax it. > With a higher land value tax land would HAVE to be used more efficiently Forcing more people from their homes and destroying their community.

pydry 4y ago

>I already own the home. A privileged position the poorer half of the population doesnt share. They have to deal with rising rents along with rising gas prices. >Imagine that sales tax was assessed yearly on every item you already own, based on the current market value Imagine instead that it was limited just to the roof over your head. Voila youve just imagined rent. Something the poorer half of the population HAS to deal with. Im just proposing leveling the playing field between renters and owners by limiting owners' right to capitalize on land value increases. That is, taking away what are effectively handouts given to you. Free money. Wealth you didnt earn because the land value isnt about you or your house. >How does that help me if I’m not a rent-seeking landlord 1. The option is always there. Whether you exercise it or not having the option of an additional stream of income DOES help you. 2. Your net worth literally goes up. You can easily convert that net worth into cash if you choose. Reverse mortgages, etc. >How does that help the community that you want to forcibly dismantle? With a higher land value tax land would HAVE to be used more efficiently. Denser housing etc. That means lower rents. That means renters who were priced out of their homes, forcibly dismantling their community, get to stay. Some people think forcibly dismantling communities of renters is fine. Perhaps they dont think they matter coz theyre typically less white communities. Perhaps this is what they really want.

teakettle42 4y ago
> Im just proposing leveling the playing field between renters and owners by limiting owners' right to capitalize on land value increases. Nobody is capitalizing on unrealized land value increases. That’s literally the definition of “unrealized”. “Make everything terrible for everyone” is one way to level a playing field, but rarely a good way. > That is, taking away what are effectively handouts given to you. Free money. Wealth you didnt earn because the land value isnt about you or your house. What free money? The wealth is unrealized. If I want to continue living in my community, it may never be realized. When and if it ever is, you can tax it. > With a higher land value tax land would HAVE to be used more efficiently Forcing more people from their homes and destroying their community.