5 ms·
This is certainly good news, but have a hard time reconciling it with the frequent posters here on HN that propose that vacant land be taxed so high it in effec
by ejb999 4y ago
This is certainly good news, but have a hard time reconciling it with the frequent posters here on HN that propose that vacant land be taxed so high it in effect forces it be developed (i.e. the taxes are so high, nobody can afford to keep land in its undeveloped state). Without large tracts of undeveloped land, animals will disappear - and then so will we as a species.
Cannot for the life of me understand what the 'we need to punitively tax all undeveloped land' people are smoking.
- civopsec 4y agoAnd on today’s episode of connecting two different things which have no connection… No one wants to tax wildlife reserves.
- nicbou 4y agoYou can do both according to what makes the most sense.
- chudi 4y agoYou can always get the federal state as a last term buyer if nobody wants the land.
- jeffbee 4y agoVacant and underused land taxes in incorporated cities save wild and farm land.
- DrThunder 4y ago
- lmm 4y agoThe point is to tax land according to its value, i.e. heavily where it's in demand (such as in the center of cities) and lightly where it's not. If anything, this would likely increase the space left open for animals, as it would increase urban density and reduce sprawl.
- HelloNurse 4y ago"Undeveloped" farmland should have low taxation, and "wilderness" even less or none at all. It's vacant buildings that should be taxed brutally, incentivizing lower rents, or their replacement with space-efficient ones, or their demolition.