4 ms·

I don't get the joke. So in your scenario people are basically not allowed to own land and the benefit is what?

• horsawlarway 4y ago
  There is no benefit, this is a terrible plan. Marginally shorter cycles before property becomes more useful in exchange for completely fucking over the elderly, marginalized groups, and those without free capital. It's a bonkers bad idea.
  • mlyle 4y ago
    > Marginally shorter cycles before property becomes more useful in exchange for completely fucking over the elderly, marginalized groups, and those without free capital. As others point out, most LVT schemes have significantly improved treatment for owner-occupied housing. The big idea here: land value is something that is established publicly and collectively rather than by any individual owner. It makes sense to tax use of this public good to reduce deadweight losses .... instead of primarily taxing improvements which disincents investment and increasing DWL. A land value tax can be expected to reduce the cost of housing. That is, it incentivizes more effective land uses-- as opposed to property taxes that include improvements, which reduce the incentive to build higher densities.
• imtringued 4y ago
  To be fair that idea is worse than auctioning land leases for a fixed period.