4 ms·
> In my opinion, housing is the final frontier for this. If housing is bought up by corporates and rented back, we are both feet into corporate dystopia. Land s
by iso1631 4y ago
> In my opinion, housing is the final frontier for this. If housing is bought up by corporates and rented back, we are both feet into corporate dystopia. Land should be between citizens and the states that write the titles.
All land should be owned by the public. To use it you would rent it for the market value, that money would be distributed to the citizens as a basic income. As the land becomes more valuable (society shifts to urbanization and cities become more valued), the cost of that land increases, but so does the basic income.
That's what happens now, except the people benefiting from the cost of the land isn't the public, but the land owner.
On the other hand, if a new power plant is opened up, land value reduces, and the land occupier pays less. Currently they just lose out, hence the NIMBY problem.
- naveen99 4y agoUS property taxes are effectively rents.
- iso1631 4y agoMy understanding is US property taxes are higher if you build property on them. a vacant 1000 square foot lot will attract less tax than the neighbouring 1000 square foot plot with a house on. Is that not right?
- naveen99 4y agoLand and improvement are taxed at the same rate, based on appraisal. There are certain exemptions for farmland, homestead etc.
- iso1631 4y agoSo improvements which shouldn't be taxed are taxed. The land owner of an empty acre pays far less tax than the land owner of an acre with 40 people living there. That's wrong.
- sokoloff 4y agoThe 40 people living on that acre demand more local government services (schools, libraries, fire/police protection, etc.) which are paid for with property taxes (in general) than the empty acre does.