2 ms·

The problem with that is that would displace virtually everyone from many cities in the US. There are plenty of cities with single family housing near the metro

The problem with that is that would displace virtually everyone from many cities in the US. There are plenty of cities with single family housing near the metro area. It was built before the city expanded. Nowadays the city engulfs it. Obviously the best use for most of that is medium density housing or some commercial use. The idea of taxing a house with a backyard like it's a $3 million quad-plex of town homes isn't very appealing.

AlchemistCamp 3y ago
That claim isn’t true. The book goes into details like this and taxes would go down for ~97% of parcels. It would go up a lot for parking lots in city centers and certain segments of commercial real estate.
- giantg2 3y ago
  Taxes never really go down. That's always the ploy - say the tax is a limited time, or only a specific low rate, then extend it. In this case, the people in power can play with the tax rates, but even more so in the zoning. An added avenue of getting screwed is not very appealing when taxes are already high. Let's not forget rhat if the goal is to utilize more space, that means more infrastructure and services costs. If we actually make a big impact on the space front, those infrastructure costs will go up and require substantially more revenue. I'm skeptical of the claim that most taxes will go down.
- bombcar 3y ago
  So limiting Georgism LVT to only commercial real estate would get you all of the benefit without affecting residential properties? Then simply enact that, and the voters won't care because their taxes will stay the same (they probably will never actually decrease).
  - AlchemistCamp 3y ago
    That isn't quite what I said, but I really suggest Lars's book, if you have a genuine interest in this! You won't get an absolutely black and white one sentence solution from it, but it is thought-provoking and contains some really useful ideas, IMO.
cultureswitch 3y ago
On the contrary, that's exactly what most cities need in order for property prices to drop from insane to less insane. LVT would exclusively take from people and corporations who own land. This in turn will allow more people to own their home.

AlchemistCamp 3y ago

That claim isn’t true. The book goes into details like this and taxes would go down for ~97% of parcels. It would go up a lot for parking lots in city centers and certain segments of commercial real estate.

giantg2 3y ago
Taxes never really go down. That's always the ploy - say the tax is a limited time, or only a specific low rate, then extend it. In this case, the people in power can play with the tax rates, but even more so in the zoning. An added avenue of getting screwed is not very appealing when taxes are already high. Let's not forget rhat if the goal is to utilize more space, that means more infrastructure and services costs. If we actually make a big impact on the space front, those infrastructure costs will go up and require substantially more revenue. I'm skeptical of the claim that most taxes will go down.
bombcar 3y ago
So limiting Georgism LVT to only commercial real estate would get you all of the benefit without affecting residential properties? Then simply enact that, and the voters won't care because their taxes will stay the same (they probably will never actually decrease).
- AlchemistCamp 3y ago
  That isn't quite what I said, but I really suggest Lars's book, if you have a genuine interest in this! You won't get an absolutely black and white one sentence solution from it, but it is thought-provoking and contains some really useful ideas, IMO.

cultureswitch 3y ago

On the contrary, that's exactly what most cities need in order for property prices to drop from insane to less insane. LVT would exclusively take from people and corporations who own land. This in turn will allow more people to own their home.