4 ms·

Detroit May Have a Solution for Reducing Rent in the U.S.

3 points by carride 3y ago

carride 3y ago
> Unlike a property tax, a land value tax also encourages the development of more rental units while discouraging building neglect and vacancy.
- thghtihadanacct 3y ago
  Exactly how much more valuable can land be with a dilapidated house than the property tax on a dilapidated house? Daryl is missing a huge part of this problem and its crumby jobs and wages. So rather than encourage better compensation this redfin guru is recommending wealthy people build high density housing to rent out cheaply to the poor. Thanks, no.
LatteLazy 3y ago
For those wondering, a Land Value Tax is just a tax on the Value of land irrespective of whether you have built on it or not. So an empty/derelict lot would attract the same tax as one with a 50 unit high rise. This does not directly penalise leaving lots empty / derilict. It does however reward people for not doing that. The main downsides are that you have to have some wy to determine value (and people really hate that) and that you end up subsidising bigger, richer households compared to smaller poorer ones on similar land. It also incentivises people to build those 50 unit super buildings, The article is sort of weird. It makes a bunch of assumptions and does not support them, and it wanders all over the place using statistics that don't actually support its claims. C'est le vie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
NoRelToEmber 3y ago
> One way to help all of Detroit’s renters is to redistribute the income of landlords back to renters. The city could achieve this through a land value tax, whereby Detroit redistributes a portion of the collected rent or imputed rent from landowners back to the city. Isn't this describing a simple income tax, where that income comes from rent, and not a land value tax? > Unlike a property tax, a land value tax also encourages the development of more rental units while discouraging building neglect and vacancy. That’s because under a land value tax, owning a dilapidated home or empty lot is more expensive than developing housing on that land. Why is it more expensive? And isn't a problem with a land value tax that it encourages keeping that value low, to reduce the tax burden? Suppose you have a street of homeowners, and they decide to fix up their yards, clean the street, turn an empty lot into a park, and other neighborhood improvements. Land in that neighborhood becomes more valuable, and the residents are punished for their good work with a higher tax!

3 points by carride 3y ago

> Unlike a property tax, a land value tax also encourages the development of more rental units while discouraging building neglect and vacancy.

thghtihadanacct 3y ago
Exactly how much more valuable can land be with a dilapidated house than the property tax on a dilapidated house? Daryl is missing a huge part of this problem and its crumby jobs and wages. So rather than encourage better compensation this redfin guru is recommending wealthy people build high density housing to rent out cheaply to the poor. Thanks, no.

LatteLazy 3y ago

For those wondering, a Land Value Tax is just a tax on the Value of land irrespective of whether you have built on it or not. So an empty/derelict lot would attract the same tax as one with a 50 unit high rise. This does not directly penalise leaving lots empty / derilict. It does however reward people for not doing that. The main downsides are that you have to have some wy to determine value (and people really hate that) and that you end up subsidising bigger, richer households compared to smaller poorer ones on similar land. It also incentivises people to build those 50 unit super buildings, The article is sort of weird. It makes a bunch of assumptions and does not support them, and it wanders all over the place using statistics that don't actually support its claims. C'est le vie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

NoRelToEmber 3y ago

> One way to help all of Detroit’s renters is to redistribute the income of landlords back to renters. The city could achieve this through a land value tax, whereby Detroit redistributes a portion of the collected rent or imputed rent from landowners back to the city. Isn't this describing a simple income tax, where that income comes from rent, and not a land value tax? > Unlike a property tax, a land value tax also encourages the development of more rental units while discouraging building neglect and vacancy. That’s because under a land value tax, owning a dilapidated home or empty lot is more expensive than developing housing on that land. Why is it more expensive? And isn't a problem with a land value tax that it encourages keeping that value low, to reduce the tax burden? Suppose you have a street of homeowners, and they decide to fix up their yards, clean the street, turn an empty lot into a park, and other neighborhood improvements. Land in that neighborhood becomes more valuable, and the residents are punished for their good work with a higher tax!