44 ms·
Thats sounds a solution for undeveloped land in urban areas though REITs are buying up the housing stock which is different. If I understand your solution corr
by boringg 4y ago
Thats sounds a solution for undeveloped land in urban areas though REITs are buying up the housing stock which is different.
If I understand your solution correctly it also puts a higher burden on the rest of the population who then have to pay higher land taxes each year (politically unpalatable) and I would argue that REITs probably have more capital to be able to pay off higher taxes where cranking up land taxes on the population makes home ownership more challenging.
- allemagne 4y agoThey are fundamentally the same problem -- profiting off of owning something fundamentally scarce that you did not produce, i.e. rent-seeking. When the taxes are proportional to the most productive use of the land you own it is less profitable or sustainable to manipulate the housing market. The strictest Georgist philosophy would hold if you happened to homestead in the heart of Manhattan your family will eventually have to choose between paying the price for holding that piece of land hostage from the rest of society or letting someone else make use of it. In practice, places like Denmark and Estonia make exemptions for owner-occupied dwellings.