3 ms·

So no improvements should ever be made because they weren't made in the past? What kind of strange way of thinking is that. You can't time travel back to the 50

So no improvements should ever be made because they weren't made in the past? What kind of strange way of thinking is that. You can't time travel back to the 50s and recreate the situation then. I generally agree with your comment overall however. If you want to solve the housing crisis you need to reverse the bad policy and add good policy. Land value tax is one such policy. There are many other, changing in regulation for housing, changes in land use policy, like minimal parking requirements, changes in urban design, changes in transport priorities, the list goes on. Some of the most beautiful and most admired parts of old cities like Boston are all illegal to build now. Policy has mostly made it impossible to build the kind of places people travel to other arts of the world to experience.

alxmng 4y ago
I don’t follow. A property tax is passed to renters. A land value tax would presumably increase the property tax, not lower it. Why would a tax increase on rentals lower rents?
- twiceaday 4y ago
  The tax wouldn't affect all properties equally. It would punish undeveloped / under-developed land much more. Those owners could try to pass it on to the renter, if there is one, but the renter can move to better developed land that would be able to provide lower rents. The theory is that this would encourage the owner to develop the land into more units or sell it to someone else who will be under the same pressure.
  - twblalock 4y ago
    The motivation to develop land and rent it out for more money is already firmly established simply by the laws of supply and demand. Anyone who is sitting on a vacant lot in a city knows they could make more money with it if they could build something more desirable on it. They don't do it because we make it really hard to do that. Consider San Francisco, where it takes years just to get permission to build housing: https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/sf-housing-development-red-tape-17815725.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/sf-hou... San Francisco is an extreme example, but many other cities are bad about this too. With a land value tax we are basically telling landowners that they aren't allowed to build and also they will be taxed for not building. Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself! A land-value tax would be a lot more reasonable if we allowed people to do what the tax incentivizes them to do.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      That might be. But honestly, anything is better then a parking lot. And going from a property tax to a land value tax is much preferable. > With a land value tax we are basically telling landowners that they aren't allowed to build and also they will be taxed for not building. Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself! Ok, and with the current system you hurt the people who have managed to build things even more. Its not like actually impossible to make something productive with your land. Land value tax, any way you look at it, is fairer and better for society then property tax. But yes, regulation are also a problem. But just because bad regulation exists, shouldn't mean you should not improve the tax system.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  The land value tax would replace the property tax. So it would hurt some people, like owners of parking lots and help other people, like owners of apartment buildings.

alxmng 4y ago

I don’t follow. A property tax is passed to renters. A land value tax would presumably increase the property tax, not lower it. Why would a tax increase on rentals lower rents?

twiceaday 4y ago
The tax wouldn't affect all properties equally. It would punish undeveloped / under-developed land much more. Those owners could try to pass it on to the renter, if there is one, but the renter can move to better developed land that would be able to provide lower rents. The theory is that this would encourage the owner to develop the land into more units or sell it to someone else who will be under the same pressure.
- twblalock 4y ago
  The motivation to develop land and rent it out for more money is already firmly established simply by the laws of supply and demand. Anyone who is sitting on a vacant lot in a city knows they could make more money with it if they could build something more desirable on it. They don't do it because we make it really hard to do that. Consider San Francisco, where it takes years just to get permission to build housing: https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/sf-housing-development-red-tape-17815725.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/sf-hou... San Francisco is an extreme example, but many other cities are bad about this too. With a land value tax we are basically telling landowners that they aren't allowed to build and also they will be taxed for not building. Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself! A land-value tax would be a lot more reasonable if we allowed people to do what the tax incentivizes them to do.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    That might be. But honestly, anything is better then a parking lot. And going from a property tax to a land value tax is much preferable. > With a land value tax we are basically telling landowners that they aren't allowed to build and also they will be taxed for not building. Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself! Ok, and with the current system you hurt the people who have managed to build things even more. Its not like actually impossible to make something productive with your land. Land value tax, any way you look at it, is fairer and better for society then property tax. But yes, regulation are also a problem. But just because bad regulation exists, shouldn't mean you should not improve the tax system.
panick21_ 4y ago
The land value tax would replace the property tax. So it would hurt some people, like owners of parking lots and help other people, like owners of apartment buildings.