3 ms·

Why punish value creation when you can punish rent-seeking? It is a strictly better substitute.

• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• zdragnar 4y ago
  Using taxes as punishment makes for a very unreliable revenue stream. Rent seekers move on, and you're left with everyone else holding the bag.
  • hahaxdxd123 4y ago
    That's the beauty of it. Land can't move.
    • zdragnar 4y ago
      It won't move, but the utilization will change to be minimize the cost. I suspect that will be a net negative for anyone who needs to rent because they cannot afford a mortgage, maintenance cost, insurance, contribution to shared infrastructure like plumbing and electrical, and taxes together. I considered renting an apartment in two different commune-owned buildings (I was a student, not looking to own). Both were just as expensive and in significantly worse condition than all of the neighboring housing options. I found w nice place, but would have been better off with a slumlord rent-seeker than either of those places.
      • hahaxdxd123 4y ago
        > It won't move, but the utilization will change to be minimize the cost. Yes people will build more medium density housing instead of having zucchini gardens in one of the most expensive regions of the world. Higher density would be good for renters in the local area. This, taken to it's "extreme": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax Pretty well studied, and has a lot of support across ideological viewpoints.