6 ms·
I thought Detroit has been in decline for decades. If anything, you’d think they’d want to attract people back with _less_ taxes.
by thinkerswell 3y ago
I thought Detroit has been in decline for decades. If anything, you’d think they’d want to attract people back with _less_ taxes.
- VirusNewbie 3y agoLess taxes are good, but if the taxes are there to help remove negative externalities from the market it will be a net win. I wouldn't mind paying a bit more property taxes if it meant property values weren't sky high and it discouraged land hoarding. Land tax is good in that it still rewards developers for creating value, but not speculators or people who buy land and don't actually provide value.
- slashdev 3y agoThis is not a problem Detroit has
- myself248 3y ago40% of all land parcels in downtown are _parking lots_. Tell me more about how nobody's hoarding land.
- phkahler 3y agoHave you tried to park downtown? If you want fewer lots it's gonna need structures.
- jackson1442 3y agoThis is exactly what LVT is supposed to incentivize.
- phkahler 3y ago>>> Have you tried to park downtown? If you want fewer lots it's gonna need structures. >> This is exactly what LVT is supposed to incentivize. How? If people don't think building a parking structure is going to be more profitable than keeping a parking lot, how is raising their cost going to change their mind? I suppose some of the lots might be sold as unprofitable which might lead to less parking and higher prices, which might lead to someone building a structure. Is that the logic? It seems pretty flimsy, but I don't otherwise see how LVT would incentivize building parking structures.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoIf you (where "you" may be a group of businesses) need X parking spaces, and land becomes more expensive, your tradeoffs shift on how you get those spaces. You are incentivized to use less land, so you are more likely to build a parking structure rather than a sprawling parking lot. I'm not an LVT advocate, but as I understand it, that's the theory.
- c22 3y agoIt rewards people who use land in a way that produces commercial value. If you wanted to speculate on some land while operating it as a private park or a free parking lot you may be out of luck.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jameshart 3y agoA land value tax, in theory, discourages the mere holding of unproductive land. Encouraging the land to go into the hands of people who will actually use it could, in theory, have some regenerative value to a declining city.
- tomrod 3y agoWhere does the land go when no one buys it or pays taxes?
- TulliusCicero 3y agoPresumably to the government, who might use it -- or sell it -- later.
- tomrod 3y agoUnder the US system, I could see this having issues if the State, Federal, or County/Municipality holds it. What if the current entity doesn't do what the other wants performed with it?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- IntelMiner 3y agoKansas showed how poorly that economic theorem pans out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- refurb 3y agoThat wikipedia article is a dumpster fire.
- rahimnathwani 3y agoThey're increasing taxes on land but decreasing taxes on buildings. So most homeowners will pay less in total property taxes than they do today.
- jghn 3y agoIf it replaces property tax wouldn't this be lowering taxes for people who actually develop on their land?
- bagels 3y agoDepends on the rates.