2 ms·
Why would you not tax the improvements? An empty lot isn't housing, if you're trying to disincentivize the hoarding of houses, wouldn't you want to target house
by friend_and_foe 4y ago
Why would you not tax the improvements? An empty lot isn't housing, if you're trying to disincentivize the hoarding of houses, wouldn't you want to target houses and not land property?
- Falkon1313 4y agoOpposite effect. Tax the land high enough, and you'd be losing money to just sit on it hoping it appreciates in value. You'd need to build something (like housing) to make a positive return, so you're incentivized to do so. If you tax houses higher, people are directly incentivized to not build any, and instead just hold vacant land.
- BirdieNZ 4y agoPeople don't hoard houses, they hoard land. Taxing houses results in fewer houses, but taxing land doesn't result in less land. Check out https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progress-and-poverty https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr...
- friend_and_foe 4y agopeople hoard houses. This is why you have landlords, this is why the value of a property is significantly improved if there's a house on it, if you can rent it to people. I like the idea of a different incentive structure: no taxes on the sale of a newly built housing, high property taxes on houses with an exemption for primary residence, and leave the existing property tax structure for business and fallow properties alone. This way you encourage new housing being built, encourage ownership and not renting out housing as a business or sitting on houses to flip them.