4 ms·

In actual use it would, in most cases, ensure that people would not, could not have long-term ownership of land passed down from generation to generation. There

In actual use it would, in most cases, ensure that people would not, could not have long-term ownership of land passed down from generation to generation. There would be significant social downstream effects & likely upheaval caused by this, & that would be compounded by the deleterious results of forcing more & more people to live shoulder to shoulder in the name of that maximum density you mention. No system of taxation is going to be perfect, or even nearly so, but some significantly increase the likelihood of abuse & unintended consequences of bad ideas allowed to run wild. All this without the need for malicious or corrupt action on the part of those in charge of the system, though it strikes me that a system such as the one proposed here would treble the power of officials to strike at groups & ways of life with which they disagree.

sheepshear 3y ago
Detroit is a city. They already try to encourage high-density living through the types of zoning they have. I don't see a fundamental issue with aligning their taxes to better facilitate their development goals. Similar arguments would go for rural municipalities that might want to encourage multi-generational agricultural living, for example, if that's what you're getting at.
closeparen 3y ago
Someone once remarked that American society is anti-Georgist, in that land speculation is actually seen as the only honorable engagement with real estate. Having un-utilized land in your family generation after generation codes as noble, but economically this is much worse than owning an AirBnb or a vacation home or being a Chinese investor who collects vacant luxury condos, or any of the other boogeymen of housing discourse. These people hold one unit off the market, and in the meantime they maintain it or finance its construction. The landowner builds and holds wealth for nothing but parasitism.
- flenserboy 3y ago
  So you're against someone who gets 100 acres, plants a house in the middle of it, & lives there simply because they want to, & they don't want to have to put up with the existence of neighbors? That's not parasitism — that's doing with one's property what one wishes to do. The economy is not the universe.
  - cycrutchfield 3y ago
    They are welcome to do so, but it would probably be cost prohibitive to do that in a highly desirable area. I’m not sure what the hangup is.
    - flenserboy 3y ago
      You are amazingly blasé about that fact that this would be using taxation to prevent people from using their own property as they see fit. This is utilitarianism run amok.
      - sagarm 3y ago
        We prevent people from using their property as they see fit all the time via zoning. It is in fact mostly those with generational wealth that use this power.
        bombcar 3y ago
        Most people don't care about zoning, but they really do care about zoning changes that affect them. Being told you can't live in your house anymore because it is now zoned commercial gets people riled up, and being told the same because it's now too expensive does the same. It's a hot-button issue but you can defuse it by putting safeguards in, though they're not always successful - see eminent domain scandals.
        sagarm 3y ago
        Actually this entire construction is wrong: currently people who improve their land get penalized by higher taxes. If there are only land value and not property taxes, we are in fact increasing your freedom to make changes to your land without penalty.
        ejstronge 3y ago
        Your argument ignores that changes to neighbors' property would then cause an increased burden to a land owner. This would not seem to be an improvement for freedom
krschultz 3y ago
Huh? You have to pay property taxes now and those could end up being too high for subsequent generations to afford. That happens all the time and is a common reason why property gets subdivided. This is simply a question of whether the value of structures on that land should be included. If anything a pure land value tax should be more predictable than a property tax, I got hit with a major property tax increase and looked into it, the town had calculated the new property tax based on an incorrect square footage and number of bedrooms for my house. After filing an appeal and going to court I got it fixed, but that was a more capricious process than if it was simply based on the value of the land under the house.

sheepshear 3y ago

Detroit is a city. They already try to encourage high-density living through the types of zoning they have. I don't see a fundamental issue with aligning their taxes to better facilitate their development goals. Similar arguments would go for rural municipalities that might want to encourage multi-generational agricultural living, for example, if that's what you're getting at.

closeparen 3y ago

Someone once remarked that American society is anti-Georgist, in that land speculation is actually seen as the only honorable engagement with real estate. Having un-utilized land in your family generation after generation codes as noble, but economically this is much worse than owning an AirBnb or a vacation home or being a Chinese investor who collects vacant luxury condos, or any of the other boogeymen of housing discourse. These people hold one unit off the market, and in the meantime they maintain it or finance its construction. The landowner builds and holds wealth for nothing but parasitism.

flenserboy 3y ago
So you're against someone who gets 100 acres, plants a house in the middle of it, & lives there simply because they want to, & they don't want to have to put up with the existence of neighbors? That's not parasitism — that's doing with one's property what one wishes to do. The economy is not the universe.
- cycrutchfield 3y ago
  They are welcome to do so, but it would probably be cost prohibitive to do that in a highly desirable area. I’m not sure what the hangup is.
  - flenserboy 3y ago
    You are amazingly blasé about that fact that this would be using taxation to prevent people from using their own property as they see fit. This is utilitarianism run amok.
    - sagarm 3y ago
      We prevent people from using their property as they see fit all the time via zoning. It is in fact mostly those with generational wealth that use this power.
      - bombcar 3y ago
        Most people don't care about zoning, but they really do care about zoning changes that affect them. Being told you can't live in your house anymore because it is now zoned commercial gets people riled up, and being told the same because it's now too expensive does the same. It's a hot-button issue but you can defuse it by putting safeguards in, though they're not always successful - see eminent domain scandals.
        sagarm 3y ago
        Actually this entire construction is wrong: currently people who improve their land get penalized by higher taxes. If there are only land value and not property taxes, we are in fact increasing your freedom to make changes to your land without penalty.
        ejstronge 3y ago
        Your argument ignores that changes to neighbors' property would then cause an increased burden to a land owner. This would not seem to be an improvement for freedom

krschultz 3y ago

Huh? You have to pay property taxes now and those could end up being too high for subsequent generations to afford. That happens all the time and is a common reason why property gets subdivided. This is simply a question of whether the value of structures on that land should be included. If anything a pure land value tax should be more predictable than a property tax, I got hit with a major property tax increase and looked into it, the town had calculated the new property tax based on an incorrect square footage and number of bedrooms for my house. After filing an appeal and going to court I got it fixed, but that was a more capricious process than if it was simply based on the value of the land under the house.